^      ^N5j^>xv\>     ^ 


■ 


SehQi  r 


BOOK    262.  13  1.SCH8  1R   c.  1 

SCHULTE    #    ROMAN    CATHOLICISM    OLD 

AND    NEW    FROM    STANDPOINT    OF 


3  T1S3  0DQb7S?0  T 


^ 


h 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  with  funding  from 

Boston  Library  Consortium  IVIember  Libraries 


http://www.archive.org/details/romancatholicismOOschu 


ROMAN  CATHOLICISM. 


6V 
ROMAN  CATHOLICISM,'^ ^5^ 

OLD   AND    NEW,  ^^ 

FROM   THE   STANDPOINT   OF 

THE    INFALLIBILITY    DOCTRINE, 


BY 

JOHN   SCHULTE,   D.D.,  Ph.D., 

BECTOB  OP  PORT  BDRWELL,   ONT,,   CANADA, 


NEW  YORK: 
Vu   WORTHINGTON,  750  BROAD\A' AY. 

1877, 


COPYRIGHT, 

R.  WORTHINGTON, 
1876. 


PREFACE. 


WHEN  fifteen  years  ago  I  left  the  Church  of  Eome, 
it  was  expected  that  I  should  publish  to  the  world 
my  reasons  for  taking  that  important  step.  However 
just  these  expectations  may  have  appeared  to  some,  I 
was  compelled  to  disappoint  them,  considering  that  con- 
troversy is  not  the  field  for  a  new  convert,  because  it  is 
apt  to  drive  him  to  the  opposite  extreme,  and  to  lead 
him  to  form  in  haste  judgments  which  require  the  most 
mature  consideration. 

Besides,  after  the  mental  crisis  through  which  I  had 
passed  and  which  lasted  for  some  years,  I  felt  that  my 
mind  needed  rest,  and  that  the  anxieties  of  a  religious 
controversy  would  rather  disturb  me  in  making  progress 
in  the  cause  of  the  truth.  I  still  think  that,  instead  of 
being  beneficial  to  myself  and  others,  it  would  have  been 
detrimental  in  more  than  one  respect. 

My  Eoman  Catholic  friends  must  not  think  that  it 
was  fear  of  possible  defeat  that  kept  me  from  entering 
the  arena  of  theological  strife.  When  I  took  the  final 
step  of  leaving  the  Eoman  communion  I  was  fully  con- 
vinced that  I  was  doing  what  was  right — following  the 


8  Preface. 

dictates  of  my  conscience ;  I  believed  also  that  I  was 
able  to  defend  what  I  had  done. 

But  in  truth  the  crisis  was  not  yet  over ;  I  was  stiU 
battling  with  myself  in  more  than  one  sense,  and  did  not 
feel  disposed  to  fight  with  those  whom  I  esteemed  as  my 
former  friends.  I  had  passed  only  through  the  negative 
part  of  the  crisis,  throwing  overboard  what  I  considered 
erroneous  in  the  Eoman  system,  and  even  casting  aside 
the  very  foundation  of  the  whole  structure,  I  mean  the 
doctrine  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Church.  I  had  made 
the  final  plunge  out  of  Eome,  without  knowing  where  to 
land,  and  I  found  myself  in  the  atmosphere  of  Protes- 
tantism which  from  my  youth  up  I  had  been  taught  to 
hate,  and  whose  divisions  I  scorned  and  abominated  as 
signs  of  a  seK-willed  and  anti-Christian  spirit.  Surely, 
then,  I  was  not  in  a  fit  state  of  mind  to  enter  the  field 
of  controversy. 

There  were,  besides,  other  powerful  reasons  which  kept 
me  in  retirement.  I  had  experienced  the  greatest  kind- 
ness, not  only  from  Eoman  Catholics  individually,  but 
from  the  Church  itseK.  I  remembered  the  happy  years 
I  had  spent  in  the  city  of  Eome.  Propaganda  College 
was  to  me  a  quiet  retreat  from  the  turmoils  and  cares  of 
the  world,  and  I  gratefully  thought  of  the  pains  which 
my  kind-hearted  superiors  and  professors  had  taken  with 
my  education.  I  had  a  high  regard  for  Pius  IX.,  not 
only  for  his  amiable  and  Christian  qualities,  but  also 
for  his  personal  kindness  to  me.  I  found  in  the  Bishop 
and  clergy  of  the  diocese  where  I  laboured,  as  priest  and 
professor,  sincere  and  attached  friends.    I  knew  that  the 


Preface.  9 

step  I  had  taken  had  erected,  in  their  eyes,  a  painful 
barrier  between  ns,  and  I  was  afraid  that  the  heat  of 
controversy  would  not  only  widen  the  breach,  but 
degenerate  into  the  bitterness  and  rancour  of  bigotry 
almost  inseparable  from  religious  polemics.  With  these 
feelings  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  I  shrank  from 
the  task  of  rushing  into  print  and  of  needlessly  arousing 
the  ire  of  my  former  co-religionists. 

And  even  though  I  had  firmly  rejected  Eomanism  as 
such,  the  love  of  the  truth  often  compelled  me,. both  in 
private  and  public,  to  stand  up  as  the  champion  of  Eoman 
Catholics  and  to  defend  them  against  the  unfair  attacks 
and  prejudices  of  over-zealous  Protestants.  For,  it  can- 
not be  denied  that,  although  intelligent  Protestants  under- 
stand the  fundamental  errors  of  Eome,  yet  there  are  many 
things  in  that  Church  which  are  misunderstood  by  the 
general  Protestant  public. 

My  experience  as  lajmaan,  priest,  and  Divinity  pro- 
fessor convinced  me  that  all  God  has  revealed  to  man- 
kind is  accepted  by  the  Church  of  Eome  ;  but  my  eyes 
were  also  opened  te  the  fact  that,  in  course  of  time, 
revealed  truths  had  become  incrusted  and  obscured  by 
manifold  errors.  In  a  word,  I  had  to  distinguish  and 
separate  the  purely  Roman  from  the  purely  Catholic, 
rejecting  the  former  and  adhering  to  the  latter. 

And,  in  looking  around  me  among  the  different 
Churches,  I  found  that  the  Church  of  England  professed 
to  have  followed  the  same  process.  This  was  the  reason 
which,  at  that  time,  determined  me  to  join  her  com- 
munion.. I  have  laboured  now,  for  the  last  thirteen  years, 


l6  Preface. 

as  a  clergjnnan  of  that  Church,  and  have  never  had 
occasion  to  regret  the  step  I  have  taken.  I  united  my- 
seK  with  her  also,  because  I  thought  to  find  there  a 
greater  field  of  employment  for  my  past  experience, 
which  might  enable  me,  in  my  sphere,  to  stem  the  Eome- 
ward  current  within  her  pale.  But  I  find  that  this 
current  is  more  apparent  than  real ;  it  is  rather  a  love  for 
"  Catholicism "  than  a  tendency  towards  ^'Romanism" 
However,  much  that  is  contained  in  these  pages  may 
indirectly  serve  to  correct  some  views  and  doctrines 
savouring  of  what  I  consider  a  mistaken  Catholicism. 

I  am  glad  now  that  I  kept  silence  during  these  many 
years.  Having  lived  the  life  both  of  a  consistent  Eoman 
Catholic  and  of  a  sincere  Protestant,  my  experience  on 
both  sides,  whilst  it  enables  me  to  speak  with  mature 
judgment,  entitles  me  also  to  be  heard  patiently  by  both 
parties. 

What  induces  me  to  write  at  the  present  juncture  is 
that  I  cannot  resist  the  controversial  current  of  our  day. 
The  atmosphere  of  the  civilized  world  grows  heavy  with 
the  momentous  conflict.  The  movement  is  an  important 
one,  and  pregnant  with  great  results.  The  question, 
"  What  is  truth  f  is  re-echoed  on  all  sides.  All  who  are 
able  to  do  so,  are  bound  to  look  it  squarely  in  the  face. 
The  very  foundations  of  social  and  religious  order  are  at 
stake.  The  minimizing  defence  of  liberal  Eoman  Catholics 
is  here  of  no  avail.  Minimism  is  a  vain  refuge,  and  it 
cannot  save  Eomanism  in  the  great  religious  crisis  upon 
-vyhich  we  appear  to  be  entering 


Preface.  11 

I  have  endeavoured  to  treat  the  whole  question  in  its 
entirety  and  to  present  it  to  the  public  in  as  brief  a 
compass  as  possible.  Although  since  the  Vatican  Council 
Eoman  Catholicism  has  been  changed  into  popery  pure 
and  simple,  yet  I  had  to  treat  of  Church-infallibility  in 
all  its  extent,  not  only  because  it  is  the  root  of  papal  in- 
fallibility, but  also  because  it  is  held  by  the  liberal 
Catholics  of  all  countries,  the  Old  Catholics  of  Germany, 
and,  in  a  modified  form,  though  unconsciously,  even  by 
some  Protestants.  In  this  sense  the  reader  will  under- 
stand the  title  of  this  book. 

In  writing  the  work  I  have  laboured  under  many 
difficulties.  Not  only  does  the  pastoral  charge  of  an 
extensive  parish  occupy  nearly  all  my  time,  distracting 
the  mind  from  literary  labours ;  but  Living  in  a  secluded 
part  of  the  country  I  have  been  deprived  of  all  access  to 
good  libraries  for  consultation.  However,  the  few  works 
I  have  made  use  of  are  thoroughly  reliable  as  to  accuracy. 
Besides  other  historical  works,  I  have  consulted  "l/os^em's 
Church  History!'  which  is  admitted  to  be  just  and  fair ; 
I  am  indebted  to  that  excellent  work,  "  The  Po;pe  and  the 
Council,  by  Janus,"  for  many  data  in  regard  to  papal 
infallibility,  and  have  found  Dr.  Barroid's  "  Treatise  on 
the  Pope's  ^wpremacyl'  to  be  a  repertory  of  trustworthy 
authorities.  I  have  endeavoured  to  acknowledge,  in  the 
proper  places,  the  assistance  derived  from  the  different 
authors  of  whose  works  I  have  availed  myself. 

Although  I  am  aware  of  the  many  imperfections  of 
this  little  book,  yet  I  trust  that  it  may  prove  useful  both 


12  Preface, 

to  Protestants  and  Eoman  Catholics,  for  whilst  I  refute 
errors,  I  endeavour  also  to  establish  the  solid  foundation 
of  the  truth. 

J.  SCHUI.TE. 
.  Pffrt  Burwell,  August^  1875. 


CONTENTS. 


Part  I. 

THE  THEORY  OF  INFALLIBILITY  IN  REGARD  TO  THE 
CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 

LECTURE    I.— Introduction. 

The  strange  phenomenon  which  the  Chnrch  of  Rome  presents  to 
thoughtful  Protestants.  Reasons  which  induce  intelligent  men  to 
go  over  to  Rome.  Literature  of  the  Roman  controversy ;  its  faults ; 
how  it  should  be  carried  on.  Renewal  of  the  struggle  with  Rome 
in  our  days.  The  question  stated.  In  what  does  Romanism  not 
consist  ?  In  what  does  it  consist  ?  The  doctrine  of  Church-infal- 
libility the  essence  of  Romanism.  Its  influence  on  the  whole 
system  Connection  between  Church-infallibility  and  papal  infal- 
libility  Page  35 

LECTURE    II. 

THE    LIVING   VOICE    OF    THE    CHURCH    AND    THE    BIBLE. 

Attachment  of  the  Roman  Catholic  to  his  Church.  Definition  of  the 
Church,  Inward  and  outward  element.  Preponderance  of  the 
external  element  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  Church  of  Christ 
infallible  in  the  inward  element.  In  the  Roman  system  infallibility 
resides  in  the  outward  element,  that  is,  in  the  living  voice  of  the 
Church.  What  part  of  the  Church  is  believed  by  them  to  be  in- 
fallible, and  how  ?    Infallibility  not  an  inspiration  but  an  assistance 


14  Contents, 

of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Division  of  the  Roman  Catholic  treatises  on  in- 
fallibility. Church  infallibility  does  not  meet  the  object  for  which 
it  is  proposed;  not  self-evident;  requires  to  be  demonstrated. 
Human  demonstration  cannot  imbue  the  mind  with  an  infallible 
faith.  The  Exjman  system  essentially  tainted  with  rationalism.  The 
Bible  our  infallible  element.  The  way  by  which  we  establish  its 
divine  authority  is  altogether  different  from  that  of  Roman  Catholics. 
First  argument  in  favor  of  Church-infallibility.  Did  the  Church 
exist  prior  to  the  Bible?  Page  45 


LECTURE    III. 

CONSIDERATION   OF   THE    SCRIPTURE    ARGUMENTS    IN    FAVOUR 
OP    INFALLIBILITY. 

Minimizing  system  of  reducing  infallibility  to  a  central  point.  The 
bishops^not  the  successors  of  the  Apostles  ;  nor  the  representatives 
of  the  Church ;  therefore  cannot  claim  infallibility.  Circulus 
vitiosus  in  proving  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  by  the  Bible,  and 
the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  by  the  infallible  teaching  of  the  Church. 
They  cannot  overcome  this  difficulty  by  considering  the  Bible  merely 
as  a  book  of  human  authority.  Such  argumentation  leads  into  a 
labyrinth  of  doubt  and  uncertainty.  Argument  from  the  promises 
of  Christ.  The  Holy  Ghost  operated  differently  with  the  Apostles 
and  with  the  post- Apostolic  Church.  How  was  He  with  the  Apostles  ? 
How  with  the  post- Apostolic  Church  ?  Difference  between  certainty 
and  infallibility.  Certainty  is  all  we  want.  Roman  Catholics  aim 
too  high  by  endeavoring  to  give  the  human  mind  an  infallible 
knowledge.  Providential  significance  of  the  Bible  as  the  only  in- 
fallible element  of  the  Church.  Office  of  the  Church  of  Christ  in 
relation  to  the  Bible.  The  bishops  of  the  first  ages  did  not  claim  in- 
fallibility. Rise  and  progress  of  this  claim.  The  history  of  the 
episcopate  excludes  the  notion  of  infallibility.  Statement  of  the 
argument  drawn  from  the  office  of  the  Church  as  witness-bearer 
Page  55 


Contents.  15 

LECTURE    IV. 

REVIEW     OF     THE     ARGUMENTS     DRAWN    FROM     THE   CHURCH'S 
OFFICE   AS  WITNESS-BEARER. TRADITION. 

Statement  of  the  argument.  In  what  does  the  witness-bearing  of  the 
Church  consist  ?  She  needs  no  infallibility  for  its  faithful  discharge. 
Roman  Catholics,  in  req^uiring  this  gift,  involve  themselves  in  a  maze 
of  difficulties.  They  are  compelled  to  admit  Oral  Tradition  and 
endow  it  with  infallibility,  also  the  uncertainty  of  oral  tradition  has 
been  felt  from  the  very  beginning  of  man's  history  ;  hence  a  surer 
way  was  invented  of  handing  down  history  to  future  generations. 
Writing  a  Providential  gift  of  God  to  perpetuate  His  revealed  truths. 
Roman  Catholics  concede  that  oral  tradition  has  been  written  down. 
Roman  Catholic  test  of  truth  as  applied  to  wiitten  tradition  :  Quod 
semper,  quod  ublque,  quod  ab  omnibus  credii^m  est.  Practical  im- 
possibility of  this  rule ;  its  difficulties  must  overwhelm  the  sincere 
enquirer  after  truth.  Nor  can  they  solve  the  difficulty  by  saying 
that  the  Church  performs  the  office  of  enquiry  for  every  one. 
Circulus  vitiosus  in  proving  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  by  tradi- 
tion, and  the  infallibility  of  tradition  by  the  Church.  The  doctrine 
of  Apostolical  succession  cannot  extricate  them  from  this  difficulty. 
The  very  nature  of  tradition  compels  us  to  believe  that  God  has  not 
made  use  of  it  as  a  rule  of  faith.  Christ  inveighed  against  tradition. 
Analogy  between  the  Jewish  system  of  tradition  and  that  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  Analogy  between  the  rule  of  faith  in  the  0.  T. 
and  in  the  N.  T Page  67 

LECTURE    V. 

TRADITION     AND     SCRIPTURE. REVIEW     OF     THE     ARGUMENTS 

DRAWN     FROM     THE     CHURCH's    OFFICE    AS    GUARDIAN    AND 
KEEPER   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

The  commission  Christ  gave  His  Apostles  to  preach  the  Gospel  does 
not  prove  the  system  of  oral  tradition.  In  what  sense  the  oral 
teaching  of  the  Apostles  would  be  a  rule  of  faith.  Preaching  must 
be  based  on  some  depository  ;  we  could  not  prove  the  orthodoxy  of 


16  Cofttents. 

preaching  by  appealing  to  oral  tradition  ;  but  it  is  easily  ascertained 
by  comparing  it  with  the  Bible.  Scripture  proofs  which  seem  to 
favour  tradition  reviewed.  Arguments  from  the  alleged  insufficiency 
of  Scripture  considered.  Catholic  character  of  the  Bible.  Who  has 
given  us  the  Bible  ?  The  Prophets  and  Apostles  the  founders  of  the 
Church.  Can  we  know,  without  the  testimony  of  the  Church,  that 
it  is  inspired  ?  Internal  evidence  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible. 
External  arguments.  The  Church  as  an  historic  society  bears  true 
witness  of  the  Canon  and  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible Page  79 

LECTURE    VI. 

EXAMINATION     OP    THE    ARGUMENTS     DRAWN     FROM     THE 
church's    office    as    INTERPRETER    OF    THE    BIBLE. 

Statement  of  the  Eomftti  Catholic  argument.  The  Church  can  perform 
the  office  of  interpreter  of  the  Bible  without  the  gift  of  infallibility. 
The  difficulty  of  the  Bible  greatly  exaggerated  by  the  advocates  of 
infallibility.  The  Church's  interpretation  full  of  difficulties.  No 
infallible  interpreter  in  ihe  Old  Dispensation  ;  A  fortiori  none  in  the 
New  Testament ;  Christians  have  greater, advantages  for  the  under- 
standing of  the  Word  than  the  Jews.  No  need  of  an  infallible  inter- 
preter ;  the  Bible  was  written  for  men  of  sound  common  sense  who 
are  expected  to  use  their  God-given  reason.  The  simplicity  of  style 
and  language  manifests  the  design  of  God.  The  very  fact  that  God 
has  given  us  the  Bible  shows  that  it  is  an  intelligible  book.  The 
Bible  promotes  enlightenment ;  the  system  of  Church-infallibiUty 
covers  nations  with  the  veil  of  darkness.  The  Bible  was  sufficiently 
understood,  in  the  first  ages,  without  an  infallible  interpreter  ;  why 
not  afterwards  ?  The  difficulties  of  the  Bible  do  not  demand  an  in- 
fallible interpreter.  Diflferent  classes  of  the  truths  of  the  Bible  and 
their  respective  difficulties.  Whosoever  is  not  satisfied  with  the 
Bible  must  likewise  be  discontented  with  the  doctrine  of  Church - 
infallibility.  Men  attached  to  a  system  and  fond  of  systematizing 
find  it  difficult  to  interpret  the  Bible,  Origin  of  denominationalism. 
How  to  gather  truth  from  the  Bible.  The  Bible  not  a  dead  letter, 
but  the  living  Word  oi  God.  What  makes  it  intelligible  to  man  ? 
Page  90 


Contents,  17 

LECTURE   VII. 

REVIEW   OP  THE   ARGUMENTS    DRAWN   FROM   THE   CHURCH'S 
OFFICE  AS   JUDGE   OP   CONTROVERSIES. 

Statement  of  the  Roman  Catholic  argument.  The  office  of  judging 
infallibly  in  doctrinal  disputes  is  neither  directly  nor  indirectly 
mentioned  in  the  Bible  ;  quite  the  contrary  can  be  proved.  Individ- 
ual conviction  of  the  mind  necessary  for  finally  settling  controversies 
of  faith.  The  Church,  as  the  kingdom  of  the  truth,  settles  contro- 
versies by  the  Bible,  the  only  standard  of  revealed  truth.  Eoman 
Catholics  exaggerate  doctrinal  difficulties.  Three  classes  of  contro- 
versial diflferences:  1,  in  regard  to  disciplinary  points,  where 
divergencies  are  allowable,  perhaps  desirable.  2,  In  regard  to  doc- 
trinal points,  that  may  be  held  either  one  way  or  the  other,  without 
injury  to  faith  and  charity.  Truth  is  many-sided.  Liberty  of  con- 
science ;  its  nature  and  use  in  God's  economy  of  revealed  truths. 
3,  Diflferences  inimical  to  purity  of  faith ;  no  infallible  tribunal 
requii-ed  to  settle  them.  They  are  trials  of  faith.  The  Bible  and 
God's  Spirit  guide  the  lover  of  the  truth.  Champions  of  the  truth 
both  in  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Dispensations.  Their  providential 
office.  Difficulties  of  the  Eoman  hypothesis.  How  are  controversies 
of  faith  settled  c?6  y^re .?    How  defactol ..Page,  102 

LECTURE    VIII. 

INPALLIBILITY   NOT   NECESSARY   FOR  THE   UNITY   OP  THE 
CHURCH. 

Roman  Catholic  argument.  Nature  of  true  unity.  Centralization  not 
unity ;  too  complicated  and  inconvenient  ;  too  despotic  ;  contains 
the  germs  of  dissolution.  The  government  of  the  Church  not 
monarchical.  Genesis  of  Eoman  Catholic  unity.  What  is  true 
organic  unity  ?  "What  does  Scripture  teach  in  regard  to  the  Church's 
unity  ?  Unity  must  be  eminently  catholic.  Relation  between  the 
Church  of  mankind  and  the  Christian  Church.  The  Bible  the  source 
and  centre  of  all  Christian  unity.  Roman  Catholic  objection.  What 
kind  of  unity  was  there  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity  ?  Present 
2 


18  Contents. 

divisions  of  Protestants.  Liberty  in  unity  ;  completely  destroyed 
by  Romanism  ;  difficulties  in  the  way  of  restoring  it.  Have  we 
unity  in  Protestantism  ?  Symptoms  of  unity.  Protestant  denomi- 
nations ;  how  may  they  be  unified  ?  Sting  of  denominationalism. 
Page  114 


Part  ll. 


THE  PRACTICAL   WORKING  OF  THE  INFALLIBILITY- 
DOCTRINE  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME. 

LECTURE    I. 

THE    DOCTRINE   OP  CHURCH-INFALLIBILITY   HAS   NOT   SETTLED 
CONTROVERSIES   OP    PAITH. 

Introduction  to  the  second  part  of  this  course.  Good  Roman  Catholic 
and  Protestant  Christians  have  the  same  faith  and  spirit  aU  the 
world  over ;  caution  to  our  bigotry.  The  Roman  hierarchy  unable 
to  settle  controversies  of  faith.  Their  starting  point  is  wrong ;  they 
doubt  the  sincerity  and  insult  the  character  of  the  accused  party 
before  he  is  heard.  The  judge  of  controversy,  being  one  of  the  con- 
tending parties,  cannot  be  impartial.  The  character  of  the  judges 
not  calculated  to  inspire  confidence  like  that  of  our  judge,  the  Bible. 
The  procedure  of  the  trial  wrong  ;  they  exclude  discussion ;  demand 
blind  and  unreserved  submission  ;  refuse  the  benefit  of  defence . 
Despotism  of  these  infallible  lords  ;  fills  the  Church  of  Rome  with 
hypocrites  and  hidden  unbelievers.  Difference  between  secular  and 
spiritual  tribunals.  Internal  conviction  required.  The  nature  of  the 
decrees  and  definitions  of  this  tribunal  is  such  that  they  cannot  settle 
controversy ;  obscure  language ;  giving  rise  to  new  controversies  ; 
requiring  another  interpreter.  Difficulty  of  access  to  the  infallible 
tribunal.  The  living  voice  a  chimera.  Written  documents  of 
councils  and  popes  reaUy  their  only  rule  of  faith ;  these  are  their 
Bible;  its  peculiarities;  a  rival  and  enemy  of  the  true  Bible.  The 
means  of  enforcing  their  decrees  tend  to  perpetuate  controversies. 
iElxcommunication  ;  its  nature  and  effects Page  129 


Contents,  19 

LECTUKE    II. 

THE   COERCIVE    POWER   OP    THE    ROMAN   CHURCH    MILITATES 
AGAINST    HER   CLAIM    TO    INFALLIBILITY. 

The  Churcli  of  Rome  has  essentially  a  persecuting  spirit.  She  not 
only  claims  to  hold  control  over  all  spiritual  matters,  but  over  soul 
and  body  also.  Vain  efforts  to  throw  the  abuses  of  the  coercive 
power  on  the  secular  power.  Connection  between  Church  and  State. 
The  Church  herself  claims  to  possess  temporal  coercive  power. 
How  does  she  prove  it  ?  The  Church  a  terror  to  all  her  members. 
The  system  of  infallibility  leads  to  exclusiveness,  bigotry,  and  cruelty. 
The  coercive  power  impedes  the  settlement  of  controversies.  The 
excommunicated  person  is  handed  over  to  the  secular  arm  ;  which  is 
compelled  to  execute  the  Church's  decrees  of  temporal  punishment. 
The  Church  accountable  for  the  cruelties  of  the  State  in  punishing 
heretics.  The  coercive  power  unable  to  settle  controversies  m  foro 
intemo.  The  Church  of  Kome  full  of  hidden  heretics  and  unbe- 
lievers. The  spy-system  essential  to  Rome.  The  Inquisition  an 
offshoot  of  the  coercive  power.  Its  terrible  nature.  Character  of 
the  Inquisitorial  judges.  Victims  of  the  Inquisition.  Its  procedure 
most  unjust,  heartless,  and  cruel.  Picture  of  the  Inquisition.  It 
still  exists.  It  is  a  condemnation  of  the  infallibility-system.  The 
Church  asserts  the  power  of  condemning  heretics  to  death.  The 
claim  to  coercive  power  glaringly  contradicts  Rome's  doctrine  on 
the  conscience.  The  Church  of  Rome  a  despotic  kingdom  of  this 
world.  Suspicion  of  heresy  ;  how  easily  entertained  and  to  what  it 
leads.  Rome's  coercive  power  in  abeyance  in  mixed  communities  ; 
would  fully  exercise  it  if  she  had  the  opportunity.  Spiritual  des- 
potism cannot  be  divested  of  cruelty. ...,.,,,...., Page  141 

LECTURE    III. 

INFALLIBILITY   NOT   THE   PRINCIPLE  OF  UNITY  IN  THE  CHURCH 
OF    ROME. 

Rome's  maxim  :  Without  infallibility  no  unity.  The  mere  authority 
of  the  teaching  body  can  preserve  unity  only  among  an  ignorant 
people.  Rome  and  education,  both  popular  and  higher.  In  what 
light  her  educational  efforts  ought  to  be  viewed.     Her  struggles  for 


20  Contents. 

obtaining  the  sole  control  of  all  education.  The  pope's  edicts. 
Separate  schools ;  their  nature.  Why  this  great  ado  of  the  hierarchy 
about  education  ?  An  enlightened  people  demands  a  unity  based  on 
the  truth,  not  on  the  principle  of  hierarchical  infallibility.  Higher 
education  ;  how  managed ;  a  certain  kind  of  metaphysics  dovetailing 
with  their  theology.  **  Catholics  on  principle  "  not  united  with  the 
Church  by  the  power  of  ecclesiastical  infallibility.  The  doctrine  of 
infallibility  does  aot  prevent  disunion ;  but  has  been  the  cause  of 
disunion  within  the  Church.  It  makes  the  Church  stationary  and 
unyielding.  Society  progressive.  Rome  cannot  be  at  the  head  of 
social  movements.  Her  obscurantism ;  ignores  the  signs  of  the 
times.  Rome  and  modern  civilization.  The  hierarchy  a  selfish 
caste ;  having  no  sympathy  with  modern  social  aspirations.  In 
endeavouring  to  pull  back  the  car  of  social  progress,  they  constrain 
peoples  and  nations  to  separate  themselves  from  the  Church.  The 
system  of  infallibility  is  so  cumbersome  that  disruption  cannot  be 
prevented  in  time.  Difficulties  before  the  Vatican  Council.  The 
Vatican  decrees  rather  increase  the  danger  of  disunion.  The  system 
of  infallibility  produces  torpor  and  inactivity,  and  therefore  is  a 
source  of  disunion.  Reason  of  a  unity  within  the  Church  of  Rome. 
Actual  divisions  within  that  Church ;  compared  with  the  divisions 
of  Protestant  Christendom Page  155 

LECTURE    IV. 

PERNICIOUS  INFLUENCE    OF   THE    INFALLIBILITY- DOCTRINE    ON 
THE    OFFICE    OF    THE    CHURCH   AS   WITNESS-BEARER. 

This  doctrine  not  only  distorts  and  obscures  revealed  truths,  but  super- 
adds the  traditions  of  men.  Difficulties  of  this  system.  The  hier- 
archy cannot  prove  their  Apostolical  succession.  Petitio  prindpii. 
They  are  compelled  to  reduce  their  oral  tradition  to  written  docu- 
ments. Flagrant  contradictions  of  their  system.  Roman  Catholic 
doctrine  in  regard  to  new  definitions.  Assistance  not  inspiration. 
Bishops  must  study  the  entire  range  of  tradition.  Their  qualifications. 
Their  practice  contradicts  their  theory.  The  aid  which  theologians 
afford  the  bishops  ;  to  what  does  it  amount  ?  Another  contra<?  iction. 
Qualification  of  theologians.  Process  by  which  the  Church  draws 
the  treasure  of  divine  revelation  from  tradition.     Very  few  of  her 


Contents,  21 

priests  are  capable  even  of  attempting  the  task.  They  cannot  be 
impartial  in  their  studies.  Always  on  the  defensive.  A  superhuman 
task.  They  meet  with  difficulties  on  all  sides  in  rightly  understand- 
ing the  documents  of  tradition.  Are  the  fathers  competent  witnesses 
of  the  catholicity  of  a  doctrine  ? Page,  173 

LECTURE    V, 

THE  DOCTRINE    OF   DEVELOPMENT    A  NECESSARY   CONSEQUENCE 
OP   THE    INFALLIBILITY-THEORY. 

Origin  of  this  doctrine.  Its  nature  ;  explicit  and  implicit  belief.  Dr. 
Newman  on  development.  Refutation  of  this  doctrine.  Petitio 
principii.  Contradiction  of  their  rule  of  Catholicity  ;  additions  and 
amplifications.  The  source  of  multiplying  dogmas  ad  infinitum. 
How  new  dogmas  are  fabricated.  Importance  of  the  scJiolce  theolo- 
gorum ;  they  are  the  working  bees.  Two  stra^^.ii'e  phenomena. 
Popular  belief  different  from  that  of  the  scholce.  Sudden  surprises 
of  the  laity.  The  Church  of  Rome  is  too  slippery  for  an  honest  Pro- 
testant controversialist.  Changeableness  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
belief.  What  kind  of  doctrines  are  principally  developed.  True 
development.  Difference  between  subjective  and  objective  develop- 
ment.    The  Abbe  Michaud  on  this  theory Page  186 

LECTUHE    VI. 

SACERDOTALISM  :    ITS    CONNECTION   WITH    THE    INFALLIBILITY- 


Position  of  sacerdotalism  in  regard  to  Christianity.  Its  nature. 
Mediatorship  between  God  and  man.  A  sacrificing  priesthood. 
The  mass.  Refutation.  Ignorance  respecting  the  nature  of  sacri- 
fice. Sacramentarianism.  Roman  Catholic  sacraments.  The  mass 
the  centre  of  all  the  sacraments.  Minor  religious  observances. 
Ritualism  the  satellite  of  sacerdotalism.  Its  character  and  origin. 
Its  pernicious  influence  on  the  people.  Its  vanity  and  unreality. 
Historical  outline  of  the  gradual  development  of  sacerdotalism  and 
ritualism.  A  word  in  season  addressed  to  ritualists  in  Protestant 
Churches Page  197 


22  Contents. 

Part  III. 

THE  PAPACY  AND  INFALLIBILITY, 
LECTURE     I. 

THE    PRIMACY    OF    PETER. 

The  papacy  the  outgrowth  of  sacerdotalism,  and  the  result  of  devel- 
opment. The  system  of  clerical  aristocracy  or  high-churchism 
tends  to  popery.  Claims  of  the  papacy.  What  are  its  title  deeds  ? 
St.  Peter's  supposed  primacy.  Argument  from  Matt,  xvi.,  18.  The 
metaphor  rock  differently  interpreted  by  the  fathers.  Neither  the 
other  Apostles,  nor  Peter,  nor  Christ  understood  it  in  the  Roman 
sense.  If  Peter  be  meant  by  rock,  it  cannot  mean  government. 
Peter  received  here  no  power  proper  to  him  alone,  and  as  superior  to 
the  other  Apostles.  Obvious  and  true  interpretation  of  the  metaphor 
rock.  Argument  from  the  metaphor  keys.  Its  true  interpretation. 
Special  pleading  of  Roman  Catholics.  Argument  from  John  xxi., 
15-17.  Its  true  interpretation.  No  trace  of  Peter's  primacy  of 
jurisdiction  in  the  New  Testament ;  nowhere  distinctly  mentioned  ; 
no  distinct  name  given  to  it ;  Christ  nowhere  distinctly  explained 
its  nature,  or  laid  down  rules  for  its  guidance.  No  sign  of  Peter's 
supreme  authority  in  his  two  epistles.  In  all  controversies  no 
appeal  to  Peter's  judgment Page2l^ 

LECTURE     II. 

THE    pope's    supremacy    CONSIDERED. 

Gratuitous  supposition  that  the  Bishop  of  R,ome  is  the  successor  to  St. 
Peter's  primacy.  Whatever  prerogatives  Peter  received  were  per- 
sonal; and  ail  embraced  in  his  Apostolical  office;  therefore  incom- 
municable to  successors.  In  what  sense  bishops  may  be  said  to  be 
the  successors  of  the  Apostles.  The  powers  of  the  Apostles  extra- 
ordinary and  unlimited.  St.  Peter's  office  not  that  of  an  ordinary 
bishop,  he  having  pastoral  charge  over  the  universal  Church  as  his 
diocese.  The  laws  of  succession  should  be  clearly  and  distinctly  laid 
down.     Deep  silence  reigus  in  Scripture  concerning  this  imporianL 


Contents,  23 

point.  Third  supposition.  Peter  was  not  the  ordinary  local  bishop 
of  Rome.  Was  he  ever  at  Rome  ?  The  office  of  an  Apostle  and 
that  of  an  ordinary  local  bishop  incompatible.  Peter's  Apostolical 
labours  preclude  the  supposition  that  he  ever  was  local  pastor  of 
Rome.  It  would  also  have  been  a  lowering  of  the  Apostolical  dig- 
nity. If  Peter  had  been  ordinary  bishop  of  Rome,  he  would  have 
violated  several  good  ecclesiastical  rules.  How  to  explain  those 
ancient  writers  who  say  that  Peter  was  Bishop  of  Rome.  Fourth 
supposition.  Would  succession  to  Peter's  supposed  Roman  bishopric 
imply  also  succession  to  his  primacy?  Roman  Catholic  rule  of 
succession  arbitrary ;  unknown  to  Roman  civil  society  ;  to  the 
teaching  of  the  fathers.  Scripture  is  silent  about  it.  Roman  Catho- 
lic reasoning  contradictory.  They  assert  that  it  was  Peter's  will 
that  the  bishop  of  Rome  should  succeed  him  in  the  primacy.  How 
do  they  prove  this  ?  It  would  have  been  unfair  towards  the  surviv- 
ing Apostles  ;  unjust  towards  the  whole  Church  at  Rome,  because 
depriving  her  of  the  right  of  electing  her  ordinary  supreme  pastor. 
The  history  of  the  succession  of  the  Roman  bishops  a  standing  scan- 
dal in  Christendom,  The  papacy  defectible.  History  and  tradition 
silent  about  the  supremacy  of  the  bishop  of  Rome.  Tag&  226 


LECTURE    III. 

DEVELOPMENT    OF    THE    PAPACY. — THE    ROMAN    BISHOPRIC    IN 
THE   UNDIVIDED   CHURCH. 

The  government  of  the  Church  in  the  first  century.  Development  of 
the  episcopacy.  Clerical  aristocracy,  G-radual  suppression  of  the 
rights  of  the  clergy  and  people  by  the  bishops.  Influence  of  Con- 
stantino's conversion  on  the  government  of  the  Church.  Church 
and  state.  The  primatial  jurisdiction  of  the  bishop  of  Rome  as  yet 
unknown.  Ambition  of  the  bishops  and  their  lordly  pride.  Cir- 
cumstances favoured  the  prelate  of  Rome.  The  importance  of  his 
episcopal  city.  His  influence  with  the  emperors,  Nature  of  the 
growth  of  spiritual  power.  The  canons  of  Sardica.  The  imprudence 
of  the  emperors  and  the  precipitate  action  of  bishops  enlarged  his 
power.  The  state  of  the  Church  during  the  first  eight  centuries 
assisted  his  ambition.      Prelatical   quarrels.     Contentions   of   the 


24  Contents, 

patriarchs.  Influence  of  the  monks.  The  contest  for  supremacy 
finally  reduced  to  a  struggle  between  two  rivals,  the  bishops  of 
Rome  and  of  Constantinople.  Circumstances  favourable  to  Rome  in 
this  rivalry.  The  Roman  clergy  and  the  bishops  of  the  West. 
Splendour  of  the  papal  court.  Political  convulsions,  disposition  of 
the  invading  barbarians  and  their  druidism,  all  favouring  the 
aggrandizement  of  Rome.  The  schism  between  East  and  West  the 
consequence  of  papal  ambition Faq&  239 

LECTURE   IV. 

DEVELOPMENT   OF  THE   PAPACY  AFTER   THE  GREAT   SCHISM. 

The  "West  the  only  field  for  papal  ambition.  Opposition  to  papal 
encroachments.  Extraordinary  liberality  of  the  barbarian  nations. 
Bishops  become  temporal  princes.  The  temporal  power  of  the  pope. 
Pepin  and  Pope  Zachary.  Charlemagne.  Restoration  of  the  Roman 
empire.  Influence  of  the  popes  in  conferring  the  imperial  dignity. 
The  exaggerated  views  of  the  invadiug  nations  regarding  the  effects 
of  excommunication  assisted  in  the  enlargement  of  papal  authority. 
The  papacy  profits  by  the  disturbed  state  of  the  empire.  It  becomes 
a  political  institution.  It  gathers  strength  in  the  gross  ignorance 
and  superstition  which  covered  Europe.  Growth  of  its  influence  in 
civil  affairs.  Its  encroachments  on  the  rights  of  the  bishops  and 
councils  of  the  Church.  Rome  justifies  its  pretensions  by  forgeries. 
Early  forgeries.  Ambition  of  Nicholas  I.  Opposition  to  the  pseudo 
Isidorian  decretals.  They  changed  the  constitution  of  tho  Church. 
The  Hildebrandine  era.  Leo  IX.  The  new  school.  The  universal 
theoretic  priest-kingdom.  Gregory  VII.  Co-operators  in  the  Gre- 
gorian system  of  Church-law.  Gregory  VII.  enforces  his  claims 
with  boldness,  and  against  all  opposition.  Clerical  celibacy.  Con- 
tentions about  the  investiture  of  bishops.  From  Gregory  VII.  to 
Boniface  VIII.  the  papacy  at  the  zenith  of  its  power  and  glory. 
Character  of  this  period.  The  papal  chair  occupied  by  monks  who 
governed  like  monks.  Alexander  III.  and  Frederick  Barbarossa. 
Innocent  III.,  and  his  extraordinary  reign.  Boniface  VIII.  ;  his 
enormous  pretensions  ;  his  quarrel  with  Philip  the  Fair.  Causes 
which,  after  Gregory  VII.,  contributed  to  increase  and  consolidate 


Contents.  25 

papal  absolutism.  Revival  of  the  Eoman  law.  Study  of  canon 
law.  Gratian's  Decretum.  The  Crusades.  The  Universities  of 
Paris  and  Bologna.  Mendicant  friars.  Military  orders.  Eemoval 
of  the  papal  residence  to  Avignon.  The  long  Schism.  The  Councils 
of  Constance  and  Basle.  Why  did  not  the  nations  throw  off  the 
yoke  of  the  papacy  after  having  experienced  its  curse  ?  The  papacy 
incorrigible.  The  Reformation ;  its  crippled  papal  absolutism. 
Henceforth  the  claim  to  infallibility  comes  prominently  in  the  fore- 
ground  Page  253 

LECTURE    V. 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY. 

Spiritual  absolutism  has  no  raison  d'etre  without  claiming  the  gift  of 
infallibility.  The  ills  of  the  Church  arose  from  the  intoxication  of 
absolute  papal  power.  The  upheavings  of  the  Eeformation,  a  protest 
against  papal  Absolutism,  and  its  claim  to  infallibility.  Rome  too 
powerful  for  the  Reformation.  Her  wars  against  it.  The  Inqui- 
sition. Secret  emissaries.  The  monks.  The  order  of  the  Jesuits 
called  into  existence  to  crush  the  Reformation.  Character  of  the 
Jesuits.  The  Infallibility-question  became  their  question  :  they 
were  well  adapted  for  its  advocacy  ;  their  system  of  blind  obedience. 
Cardinal  Pallavicini  reduces  the  Infallibility-doctrine  to  a  definite 
formula.  The  Jesuit  Theologians.  Cardinal  Bellarmine's  defence 
of  the  dogma ;  aided  by  the  Inquisition  and  the  Index  Librorum  Fro- 
hibitorum.  Manipulation  of  the  Roman  breviary,  in  order  to  imbue 
the  clergy  with  this  doctrine.  Historical  labours  of  Cardinal 
Baronius  in  favour  of  Infallibility.  Rapid  spread  of  the  infallibility- 
doctrine,  through  the  labours  of  the  Jesuits.  Jesuitical  introduction 
of  the  ex-cathedrd  distinction.  Opposition,  to  the  machinations  of 
the  Jesuits.  The  successors  and  descendants  of  the  councils  of  Con- 
stance and  Basle.  GaUicans  and  Ultramontanes.  Advantages  of 
the  latter  ;  disadvantages  of  the  former.  Circumstances  which 
hastened  the  dogmatic  definition.  The  Vatican  council.  What  in- 
duced the  minority-bishops  to  subscribe  almost  immediately  after 
the  council.  .- Page  273 


26  Contents. 


LECTURE    VI. 

THE    VATICAN    COUNCIL — THE    INFALLIBILITY-DECREE     IN    THE 
LIGHT    OF    REASON   AND    TRADITION. 

The  Vatican  council  itself  alone  a  complete  refutation  of  Roman  Catho- 
licism both  Gallican  and  Ultramontane.  Meaning  of  the  Infallibility- 
dogma.  The  arguments  in  its  favour  are  mostly  of  an  inferential 
character,  and  drawn  from  the  pretended  primacy  of  Peter,  and  from 
the  nature  and  object  of  the  Church.  The  same  end  may  be  obtained 
by  other  means.  Blind  faith  contrary  to  God's  order,  and  the 
nature  of  the  human  mind.  Christian  faith  an  intelligent  assent 
demanding  research.  The  Vatican  decree  destroys  all  individual 
responsibility  in  matters  of  faith.  The  rule  of  Catholicity  not  appli- 
cable  to  the  new  dogma.  It  has  no  foundation  in  Tradition,  it  is 
not  found  in  the  ancient  creeds,  expositions  of  faith,  or  acts  of  coun- 
cils. The  whole  economy  of  the  first  eight  oecumenical  councils 
militates  against  it ;  they  even  judged  the  letters  and  acts  of  the 
popes.  The  whole  Greek  Church  ignores  this  doctrine.  The 
fathers  knew  nothing  of  it.  Teaching  of  the  Latin  fathers  in  regard 
to  the  bishop  of  Rome.  The  African  Church.  The  system  of  Unity 
advocated  by  St.  Cyprian  does  not  favour  papal  infallibility.  The 
teaching  of  St.  Augustine  opposed  to  this  dogma.  Exposure  of  the 
famous  dictum :  Roma  locuta  est,  causa  finita  est.  The  fathers  in 
their  disputes  with  heretics  never  appealed  to  the  judgment  of  the 
bishop  of  Rome  as  final Page  286 

LECTURE    VII. 

THE   VATICAN    DECREE    IN   THE   LIGHT   OP   HISTORY. 

History  teaches  that  the  Vatican  oracle  is  a  lying  oracle.  Popes  con- 
tradict the  dogmatic  teaching  of  the  Church  of  Rome  on  the  nature 
and  administration  of  the  sacraments.  Innocent  I.  on  communion 
of  infants;  Nicholas  I.  on  baptism.  Celestine  III.  and  Stephen  II. 
on  marriage.  Nicholas  II.  on  the  eucharist.  Eugenius  IV.  on  the 
validity  of  the  sacraments.  Errors  of  the  mediaeval  popes  on  the 
sacrament  of  holv  orders.     Heresies  of  the  nones  in  reaard  to  the 


Contents.  27 

relation  between  their  authority  and  the  secular  power.  Since  the 
Hildebrandine  era  they  have  proclaimed  the  whole  world  a  priest- 
kingdom  ;  asserting  that  they  have  supreme  authority  in  all  tem- 
poral matters,  and  that  all  secular  power  is  derived  from  them  ; 
claiming  the  two  swords,  the  power  of  erecting  new  kingdoms,  and 
of  appointing  kings  ;  of  deposing  princes,  and  absolving  subjects 
from  the  oath  of  allegiance.  They  claimed  this  enormous  power  not 
by  international  law,  but  by  Divine  right.  They  intended  such 
teaching  to  be  ex  cathedra  and  dogmatic.  Gregory  VII.  Innocent 
III.  Innocent  IV.  Boniface  VIII.  Review  of  this  pope's  bull 
U'iiam  Sanctam.  Vain  endeavour  of  modern  theologians  to  explain 
away  its  dogmatic  import.  Former  eminent  divines  and  the  popes 
themselves  succeeding  Boniface  VIII.  acknowledge  its  dogmatic 
authority.  Suarez.  Baronius.  Lessius.  Bellarmine.  Pope  Pius  V. 
Sixtus  V.  Difficult  dilemma  from  the  horns  of  which  Roman 
Catholics  cannot  escape.  Painful  straits  to  which  they  are  reduced 
in  regard  to  the  many  dogmatic  errors  of  mediseval  and  modern 
popes.  Heresies  of  the  ancient  bishops  of  Rome.  The  apostasy  of 
Liberius.  Zosimus.  Pope  Vigilius  and  the  Three  Chapters'  contro- 
versy. Review  of  the  cas3  of  Honorius.  No  special  exegesis  can 
purge  his  letters  to  Sergir.s  from  the  stain  of  heresy.  They  were 
written  ex  cathedrd.  Honorius  condemned  by  the  Church  as  a 
heretic.  Efforts  of  the  infallibilists  to  reconcile  the  case  of  Honorius 
with  the  Vatican  dogma Page  297 


LECTUHE    VIII 

THE   VATICAN   DECREE    IN  THE    LIGHT    OF  SCRIPTURE. 

Scripture  the  last  source  of  arguments  to  which  Roman  Catholics 
appeal.  The  Old  Testament  is  against  them.  Dr.  Newman's  state- 
ment. They  contradict  their  cardinal  rule  of  interpretation,  as  con- 
tained in  the  creed  of  Pius  V.  Review  of  the  arguments  drawn  from 
Matt,  xvi.,  18.  ;  John  xxi.,  15.  ;  Luke  xxii.,  32.  Dr.  Schaff's 
remarks  on  the  spiritual  Peter  and  carnal  Simon. Page  311 


2^  Contents. 

LECTURE    IX. 

THEORY   AND    FACT. 

In  the  process  of  reasoning  by  which  Roman  Catholics  endeavour  to 
establish  the  infallibility-hyphothesis,  the  conclusion  is  assumed  to 
be  more  certain  than  the  premises  on  which  it  rests.  Contradiction 
between  the  infallibility-doctrine  and  its  ^practical  influence  on  the 
belief  of  the  Church.  The  recent  controversy.  Mr,  Gladstone  and 
Dr.  Newman.  What  induced  Dr.  Newman  to  accept  the  Vatican 
decrees  ?  What  became  of  the  Gallicans  ?  New  theological  schools, 
the  minimizers  and  maximizers.  No  uniformity  'of  belief.  Where 
is  the  certain  voice  of  the  living  teacher  to  be  found  ?  The  scholar 
no  longer  represent  the  papacy  in  its  doctrines.  The  pope  being  all 
in  all,  can  no  longer  speak  by  any  agent.  The  rule  of  faith  now  is  : 
Quod  hodie  in  Vaticano  a  Domino  nostro  Papa  declaratum  est.  The 
entire  Christian  religion,  in  the  last  resort,  reposes  in  the  breast  of 
•the  pope.  Reply  of  the  maximizers  ;  it  would  be  useless  to  debate 
with  them.  Our  controversy  is  with  the  minimizing  theologians. 
Dr.  Newman's  remarks  about  the  virtue  of  faith — suggesting  **  the 
drift  of  all  he  has  to  say  about  the  Vatican  definition."  Reply. 
Why  faith  is  a  diff"erent  virtue  in  the  Roman  system.  They  cannot 
give  a  logical  genesis  of  the  act  of  faith.  Why  they  shrink  from  a 
fearless  enquiry.  History  contradicts  Dr.  Newman's  assertion  that 
"the  Church  has  ever  shown  the  utmost  care  to  contract  the  range 
of  truths,  and  the  sense  of  propositions  of  which  she  demands  abso- 
lute reception."  Rome  constantly  developes  new  dogmas.  Reasons 
which  may  induce  the  pope  to  speak  in  future  more  frequently  ex 
cathedra,  than  before  the  Vatican  council.  Dr.  Newman's  plea  for 
"a  wise  and  gentle  minimism"  of  no  avail.  Minimism  a  faint  exer- 
cise of  mental  liberty,  not  in  favour  at  Rome.  The  hopes  of  Dr. 
Newman  in  the  labours  of  the  scholce  theologorum  unfounded.  The 
science  of  theology  incompatible  with  papal  infallibility.... Pa^fe  317 


Contents.  29 


LECTURE    3t. 

THE  VATICAN  DECREE  CHANGES  THE  RELATION  OF  THE  PAPACY 
TO  THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  STATE. 

The  Vatican  decree  transfers  the  gift  of  infallibility  from  the  Church 
to  the  pope  ;  it  ceases  to  be  the  same  power.  All  the  former  safe- 
guards in  regard  to  definitions  of  faith  are  taken  away.  The  pope 
in  a  different  position  in  regard  to  princes  and  states.  La  Chiesa 
sono  io.  The  pope's  dogmatic  definitions  and  decrees  will  greatly 
depend  on  his  personal  character.  Pius  IX.  The  pope's  immediate 
surroundings  influence  his  dogmatic  utterances  ;  the  malaria  in  the 
atmosphere  of  the  Vatican.  The  Church  will  be  completely  Italian- 
ized. Twofold  loyalty  of  Roman  Catholics.  Loyalty  to  the  pope 
must  prevail.  The  Vatican  definition  has  changed  the  civil  statiis 
of  Roman  Catholics.  Dr.  Newman's  minimizing  on  this  point  con- 
tradicts the  Roman,  system.  The  pope's  interference  in  the  admin- 
istration of  civil  governments.  Conflict  between  papal  decrees  and 
civil  laws.  Contest  between  the  papacy  and  the  German  empire. 
The  struggle  in  Italy.  Nature  of  the  rights  for  which  the  pope  con- 
tends in  all  countries.  His  voice  must  have  an  influence  on  the 
loyalty  of  "  the  faithful."  Change  produced  by  the  Vatican  decrees 
in  the  standing  of  the  episcopate.  Reasons  why  the  people  con- 
tinue to  remain  in  spiritual  slavery ....Page  330 

LECTURE    XL 

REVIEW   OF   THE   RESTRICTIONS   OF    PAPAL    INFALLIBILITY. 

Dr.  Newman,  in  comparing  the  ex-cathedrd  teaching  with  an  oecume- 
nical council  contradicts  his  former  assertion  that  "  the  pope  has 
that  same  infallibility  which  the  Church  has."  If  the  pope's  infalli- 
bility be  admitted  at  all,  it  must  be  unconditional  and  unlimited  ; 
in  the  last  analysis,  it  becomes  a  purely  personal  attribute.  The 
expression  doctor  privatus,  when  used  of  a  pope,  is  like  talking  of 
wooden  iron.  When  does  the  pope  speak  ex  cathedrd  ?  Review  of 
the  four  conditions  adduced  by  Dr.  Newman.  The  first  condition  is 
too  limiting  ;  it  contradicts  the  papal  system.     Is  the  pope  the  uni- 


30  Contents. 

versal  teacher  only  when  he  addresses  the  whole  Chiirc'i  ?  The 
second  condition  comprises  more  than  they  are  willing  to  admit. 
The  third  condition  is  useless,  as  the  pope  himself  has  to  draw  the 
line  between  religious  and  secular  matters.  The  fourth  condition 
throws  no  new  light  on  the  subject.  No  choice  left  between  infal- 
libility pure  and  simple  and  repudiating  it  altogether Tage,  342 


ROMAN  CATHOLICISM; 


PART   L 


TEE  THEORY  OF  INFALLIBILITY  IN  REGARD 
TO  THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST 


LECTUEE  I. 

INTRODUGTION. 

THERE  is  an  institution  in  the  religious  world  whicli  great- 
ly puzzles  and  perplexes  the  enlightened  Protestant. 
This  institution  boasts  a  respectable  antiquity,  and,  in  some  re- 
spects, a  grand  history  which  has  often  dazzled  the  scholar 
in  many  a  brilliant  episode.  It  possesses  a  vital  power  that, 
going  beyond  the  comprehension  of  a  merely  superficial  ob- 
server, displays  its  masterly  ability  by  knowing  how  to  make 
proselytes,  and  how  to  keep  them  within  its  bosom.  Since 
its  formal  inauguration  as  a  system,  it  has  always  been  the 
most  pretentious,  as  well  as  the  most  exclusive,  ecclesiastical 
institution,  embracing  within  its  fold  the  greater  part  of 
Christendom,  even  amongst  nations  bitterly  hostile  to  each 
other.  Some  of  the  best  men  and  the  noblest  benefactors  of 
mankind  have  been  its  humble  adherents,  and  its  members 
cling  to  it  even  to  the  verge  of  fanaticism.  It  is  like. a  well  disci- 
plined and  ably  officered  army  presenting  the  appearance  of  an 
invincible  phalanx.  For  every  disposition  of  mind  it  makes 
room,  and  provides  satisfaction  for  every  taste.  Its  highly 
symbolic  ritual  has  charms  for  the  cultured  as  well  as  for  the 
ignorant.  The  greatest  masters  of  the  liberal  arts  have  been 
its  willing  servants.  They  have  erected  temples  un- 
surpassed in  architectural  beauty  and  grandeur ;  they  have 
adorned  them  with  impressive  sculpture  and  painting,  and 
enlivened  them  with  sublime  song  and  music.      In  a  word, 


36  Roman  Catholicism, 

this  institution  seems  to  have  the  wonderful  gift  of  making 
its  members  contented  and  steadfast. 

And  yet  the  enlightened  Protestant  knows  that  this  very- 
institution  is  brimful  of  error  and  superstition ;  that  it  per- 
verts the  most  important  truths  of  Christianity;  that  in 
many  cases  it  makes  the  Word  of  God  of  none  effect  by  its 
traditions,  and  for  the  "Word  of  God  substitutes  the  word  of 
man ;  that  its  ritual  symbolizes  the  greatest  errors,  so  that 
its  central  worship  is,  if  not  formal,  at  least  material  idola- 
try ;  and  that  its  government  is  a  spiritual  despotism  en- 
slaving its  members. 

You  are  aware  that  I  mean  the  Church  of  Kome.  The  re- 
flecting Protestant  is  astonished  at  the  phenomena  which 
this  Church  presents  to  him.  To  his  impartial  judgment  the 
many  good  points  that  she  possesses  are  evident  j  but  the 
many  evils  also  with  which  she  is  weighted  stare  him  in  the 
face  in  all  their  glaring  deformity.  He  cannot  understand 
why  enlightened  members  of  Rome  should  not  perceive  these 
defects,  should  not  see  what  he  sees  and  insist  upon  a  thorough 
reformation  of  their  Church,  rejecting  the  error  and  retain- 
in  the  truth.  He  cannot  understand  how  enlightened 
Roman  Catholics  can  possibly  believe  that  in  the  mass,  by 
the  consecrating  words  of  the  priest,  bread  and  wine  are 
changed  into  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  and  offered  again 
by  an  earthly  priest  as  a  sacrifice  for  the  living  and  dead ;  how 
sensible  and  serious  men  can  be  attracted  and  deluded  by  so 
sensuous  a  worship,  symbolizing,  as  it  does,  the  grossest  error. 
He  cannot  comprehend  how  free,  enlightened  men  can  believe 
in  the  extraordinary  powers  of  the  priesthood,  and  submit 
themselves  humbly  to  a  hierarchy  claiming  absolute  spiri- 
tual sway.  These  and  many  other  things  in  the  Church  of 
Rome  the  intelligent  Protestant  cannot  understand. 


Introduction,  37 

But  what  puzzles  him  still  more  is  that  talented  men,  men 
of  standing  in  other  denominations  and  in  society,  should 
leave  their  own  Church  and  enter  the  Roman  Communion. 

I  have  not  time  here  fully  to  explain  this  puzzling  pheno- 
menon. Each  pervert  to  Rome  has  his  own  story  to  tell. 
Most  of  these  men  are  dissatisfied  with  their  Church  and 
with  Protestantism  generally,  and  hope  to  find  in  Rome 
that  which  Rome  lays  claim  to,  namely,  the  old  Catholicism 
which  is  based  on  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles.  There 
is  also  a  certain  amount  of  rationalism  in  Roman  theo- 
logy. What  else  is  the  scholastic  theology  but  rationalism 
with  a  pious  tendency?  Now,  the  learned  men  who  have 
gone  over  to  Rome  are  for  the  most  part  imbued  with  that 
philosophic  and  mystic  rationalism  by  the  aid  of  which  Rome 
defends  her  errors.  Such  men  are  prone  to  recognize  in 
the  greatest  Roman  errors  deep  philosophical  and  theolo- 
gical truths.  There  can  be  no  doubt  also,  that  Rome  has  an 
imposing  exterior  ;  truth  and  error  are  mixed  together  ;  and 
this  compound  is  embellished  with  all  the  refinement  and 
beauty  of  poetry  and  the  arts,  and  presented  under  a  gorgeous 
ritual  based  upon  a  fallacious  symbolism.  No  wonder,  then, 
that  men  of  a  certain  cast  of  mind  are  dazzled  by  the  false 
light  and  caught  in  the  net. 

The  literature  of  the  Roman  controversy  is  very  extensive, 
for  it  would  fill  whole  libraries  ;  but  I  think  the  good  it  has 
done,  is  by  no  means  commensurate  with  its  extent.  More 
favourable  results  might  have  been  expected,  and  in  a 
number  of  cases  it  has  done  positive  harm!  As  a  rule,  books 
of  controversy  written  and  published  by  Protestants  do  not 
reach  Roman  Catholics,  since  they  are  forbidden  to  possess 
or  read  them.  Some  have  been  written  for  political  and  party 
purposes,  and  consequently  are  calculated  rather  to  excito 


38  Roman  Catholicisrn, 

anger  than  to  gain  attentive  consideration.  Some  have 
misinterpreted  doctrines,  and  are  regarded  as  calumnies 
and  misrepresentations.  Others  again  have  been  written  in 
a  bigoted  spirit,  and  are  met  by  them  with  a  countervailing 
bigotry.  Some  are  too  learned  for  the  popular  mind,  and 
others  too  shallow  to  deserve  the  attention  of  an  intelliocent 
Roman  Catholic  reader.  So  far  as  my  own  experience  goes, 
I  think  that  Roman  Catholics  are  under  the  settled  impres- 
sion that,  in  our  controversies  with  them,  we  do  not  treat 
them  in  a  kind  and  Christian  spirit,  but  rather  approach  them 
as  enemies  and  in  the  spirit  of  bitterness.  Hence  even  the 
well-meaning  and  truth-loving  members  of  that  Church  are 
on  their  guard  against  us  and  our  publications ;  they  look 
upon  us  with  suspicion  when  we  meet  them  in  the  arena  of 
theological  disputation,  and  well  they  may.  Do  not  our  best 
Protestant  controversialists — men  whom  we  regard  as  pat- 
terns in  every  Christian  walk — seem  to  become  inflated  with 
bigotry  and  seized  with  an  insane  frenzy,  so  soon  as  they 
enter  upon  the  field  of  controversy  with  Roman  Catholics  % 
Is  it  not  the  settled  custom  to  apply  to  the  pope  and  the 
Roman  Church  the  most  opprobrious  epithets?  Do  they 
"  S'peak  the  truth  in  love  ?" 

In  treating  with  Roman  Catholics,  we  must  act  justly, 
fairly  and  kindly.  We  should  never  lose  sight  of  the  fact 
that  Rome  has  never  denied  Christ  and  that  her  fundamental 
doctrine  of  salvation  is  Christ  and  faith  in  Him ;  that  she 
possesses  the  Bible  and  reveres  it  as  the  Word  of  God. 
Moreover  we  cannot  deny  that  Rome  as  a  Church  is  zealous 
in  good  works.  In  our  controversy  with  Rome,  therefore, 
we  should  approach  her  with  the  deference  due  to  a  Christian 
Church.  True,  we  believe  that  she  teaches  many  erroneous 
doctrines  i  but  that  should  not,  by  any  means,  hinder  us 


Introduction.  39 

from  acting  towards  her  with  courteous  consideration.  Have 
not  other  Churches,  too,  gone  astray  %  Yet  we  look  upon 
them  as  Christian  bodies  and  treat  them  with  brotherly  kind- 
ness. Why  should  we  make  an  exception  as  regards  the 
Church  of  Rome  %  Let  us  then  "  speak  the  truth  in  love." 
By  this  method  we  may  the  more  easily  convince  our  erring 
brethren  and  extend  the  kingdom  of  Christ  and  His  truth. 
"  Speaking  the  truth  in  love'''  shall  be  my  motto  in  this  com^se 
of  lectui'es,  especially  as  I  know,  from  my  own  experience, 
that  our  Roman  Catholic  brethren  are  sensitive  as  to  the 
manner,  not  less  than  the  matter,  of  the  controversy. 

In  all  countries  Roman  assumptions  appear  to  have 
received  a  new  importance  in  our  days.  All  Europe  is 
ablaze  with  it.  In  Italy,  a  fierce  struggle  has  been  going  on 
now  for  some  years  between  the  papacy  and  the  new  order  of 
things.  In  Germany  the  very  existence  of  the  new  empire 
seems  to  be  staked  on  its  final  victory  over  ultramontanism. 
France,  Spain  and  Austria  have  their  religious  excitements 
and  controversies  with  Rome,  and  England  has  not  escaped. 
The  innovations  of  ritualism  have  kindled  again  the  fire  of 
her  old  religious  struggles  ;  and  on  the  American  continent, 
the  atmosphere  is  lurid  from  a  kindred  cause.  The  Roman 
difficulty  appears  never  to  be  settled ;  every  now  and  then 
something  new  arises  to  stir  it  up  afresh.  So  long  as  Rome 
has  life  and  strength,  the  battles  of  the  Reformation  will  have 
to  be  fought  over  and  over  again.  If  experience  has  taught  us 
wisdom,  we  shall  contest  them  in  a  dififerent  spirit. 

Before  entering  upon  a  controvercy  we  must  take  a  sure 
standpoint,  survey  the  field,  and  determine  with  precision 
the  matter  in  dispute;  otherwise  there  will  inevitably  be 
confusion  and  misunderstanding.  If,  then,  we  wish  to  refute 
what  is  commonly  called  Romanism,  we  must  fiist  clearly  and 


40  Roman  Catholicism, 

distinctly  state  in  what  Eomanism  consists,  for  mistakes  havd 
been  made  by  controversialists  in  answering  this  question. 

Komanism  does  not  consist  in  those  truths  which  it  pro- 
fesses in  common  with  other  Christians,  and  which  are  the 
spiritual  food  of  its  members.  The  Romanist  often  points  to 
these  truths  as  his  religion,  when  his  Church  is  assailed;  but 
that  is  not  what  we  attack  and  call  Eomanism. 

Nor  does  it  consist  in  those  errors  which  it  holds  in  com- 
mon with  other  Churches,  such  as  the  real  and  objective 
presence  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  in  the  Eucharist,  the 
sacrifice  of  the  mass,  the  seven  sacraments,  and  sacramental 
grace  ex  opere  operato,  auricular  confession  and  priestly  absolu- 
tion, a  high  symbolical  liturgy  in  an  unknown  tongue,  celibacy 
of  the  clergy,  prayers  to  the  Virgin  Mary  and  the  Saints,  pil- 
grimages and  prayers  for  the  dead.  All  these  errors,  besides 
others,  are  as  tenaciously  and  steadfastly  held  by  the  Eastern 
Churches,  comprising  many  millions  of  adherents  j  and  some 
of  these  false  doctrines  and  superstitious  practices  are  pro- 
fessed, in  a  modified  form,  by  Protestant  Churches.  They 
are,  therefore,  not  distinctively  Roman.  You  may  as  well  call 
the  mass,  confession,  priestly  absolution,  and  other  doctrines, 
Russian,  or  Greek,  or  Armenian,  or  Syrian,  &c.,  as  Roman. 
Most  of  these  errors  existed  in  the  Chui'ch  before  Romanism 
had  being;  and  they  had  crept  in,  not  purposively,  but 
through  an  excess  of  piety  and  reverence  for  holy  things  and 
ordinances,  or  through  the  characteristic  tendency  of  Eastern 
nations  towards  the  symbolic  or  outward  elements  of  religion. 

When,  therefore,  we  accuse  our  Ritualists,  Sacramentarians, 
or  others,  of  Romanism  or  Romeward  tendencies,  we  utter  a 
false  accusation  ;  for  these  errors  are  neither  exclusively  and 
distinctively  Romish,  nor  do  they  of  themselves  lead  to  Rome. 
They  must  be  dealt  with  by  themselves,  and  on  their  own 


Introduction.  41 

merits,  and  not  on  the  ground  that  they  have  any  essential 
and  distinctive  connection  with  E-omanism.  This  connection 
is  altogether  accidental.  True,  some  of  these  Ritualists  and 
men  of  similar  tastes  and  tendencies,  have  gone  over  to  Rome; 
but  if  ritualism  alone  induced  them  to  take  that  step,  their 
eyes  must  have  been  opened  in  astonishment  when  they 
found  themselves  actually  within  the  portals  of  Rome,  and 
discovered  in  what  Romanism  really  consists.  There  they 
had  to  unlearn  not  only  much  of  theii'  former  ritualism,  but 
were  compelled  to  learn  what,  before  joining  themselves 
to  Rome,  they  so  stoutly  repudiated,  namely,  yielding  obedi- 
ence to  constituted  rule  and  authority,  and  that  not  intelli- 
gently, but  blindly.  No ;  ritualism  is  not  essentially  Rom- 
anism. True,  Rome  has  a  ritual  which  is  the  work  of  ages; 
but  that  does  not  constitute  her  essential  and  distinctive 
character.  Other  Churches  have  similar  or  even  more  gorgeous 
ones,  in  comparison  with  which  the  Roman  ritual  appears 
very  sober  and  jejime. 

What,  then,  is  Romanism,  since  these  errors  do  not  of 
themselves  constitute  its  special  character  %  I  answer :  that 
is  Romanism  which  no  other  Church  but  Rome  holds,  which 
pervades  her  whole  constitution  and  nature,  and  by  which 
she  can  be  known  and  distinguished  all  over  the  world  as 
the  Church  of  Rome.  And  what  is  this?  The  doctrine, 
that  the  Church  of  Christ  is  infallihle ;  that  the  Church  of 
Rome  is  the  Church  of  Christ;  anrid  therefore  that  she  alone  is 
infallihle.     This,  stated  in  syllogistic  form,  is  Romanism. 

Simple  as  the  dogma  appears,  it  expresses  Rome's  distin- 
guishing characteristic.  It  pervades  and  permeates  her  whole 
nature,  and  is  the  mainspring  of  her  entire  action.  It  imparts 
a  peculiar  tinge  to  all  her  errors,  even  those  which  she  holds 
in  common  with  other  Churches ;   because  she  stereotypes 


42  Roman  Catholicism. 

them  and  seals  them  with  permanency.  It  is  the  source  of 
new  errors  which  are  developed  from  time  to  time.  It  ren- 
ders all  doctrinal  reform  within  her  borders  simply  impossible; 
for,  by  reforming,  she  would  deny  her  infallibility,  and  stul- 
tify herself.  It  gives  the  hierarchy  that  absolute  sway  over 
the  consciences  of  her  members  which  destroys  all  individu- 
ality, and  nips  in  the  bud  all  independence  of  inquiiy.  It 
causes  her  to  consider  herself  the  only  Church  of  Christ,  out 
of  whose  pale  there  is  no  salvation,  and  to  regard  all  who 
differ  from  her  as  heretics  and  schismatics,  against  whom 
she  fulminates  her  excommunications  and  anathemas.  This 
doctrine  of  infallibility  imbues  her  with  the  spirit  of  intoler- 
ance, persecution,  and  cruelty,  and  destroys  in  her  heart  that 
tender  love  which  the  good  shepherd  should  feel  towards 
errant  sheep.  It  subordinates  the  Book  of  God  to  her 
voice;  nay,  she  maintains  that  we  should  not  have  the 
Bible  but  for  her  and  through  her,  nor  understand  it  rightly 
but  by  means  of  her  interpretation;  for  she  claims  an  exist- 
ence anterior  to  the  Bible,  and  independent  of  it,  and  that 
she  could  exist  even  without  it.  In  a  word,  this  doctrine  of 
infallibility  gives  life  to  her  whole  being,  and  colour  to  all 
her  decrees,  doctrines,  and  practices,  so  that  even  those  truths 
or  errors,  doctrines  and  practices,  which  she  holds  in  common 
with  other  Churches  assume  a  different  aspect  when  they  are 
presented  to  her  members  as  dogmas  of  faith.  The  infalli- 
bility of  the  Church  is  the  final  evidence  of  all,  the  supreme 
judge  of  controversies,  the  last  sure  resting-place  for  every 
doubting  mind ;  hence  so  long  as  a  member  maintains  this 
doctrine,  he  must  perforce  submit  understanding  and  will  to 
the  decisions  of  the  Church,  stifling  his  doubts,  however 
strong  they  may  be.  The  Church  must  be  right  because  it 
is  infallible,  and  he  wrong  because  fallible  and  erring.     He 


Introduction.  43 

cannot  conscientiously  leave  his  Church  until  he  is  fully 
satisfied  that  her  claim  to  infallibility  is  without  foundation. 
The  man  who  is  thoroughly  convinced  of  the  falsehood  of 
some  of  her  doctrines,  and  is  unwilling  to  submit  his  under- 
standing to  her,  and  at  the  same  time  is  desirous  to  remain 
within  her  bosom,  in  order  to  agitate  from  within  for  reform, 
is  truly  to  be  pitied.  Such  an  agitation  would  be  visited 
with  severe  penalties,  even  with  excommunication ;  for  reform 
involves  the  denial  of  her  claim  to  infallibility.  Rome  is 
always  the  same :  she  retains  what  she  once  has  got  in  pos- 
session, but  she  may  unravel  and  develop  more,  for  infallibility 
does  not  exclude  the  idea  of  development. 

Has  she  i«!fOt  fully  developed  and  in  our  days  solemnly  pro- 
nounced, among  other  things,  the  infallibility  of  the  pope  ? 
This  dogma  was  decreed  by  the  Bishops  in  the  A^atican 
Council,  and  must,  therefore,  be  believed  by  all  Roman 
Catholics.  It  might  be  thought  that  this  would  convulse  the 
entire  Church  and  change  her  polity.  By  no  means :  the  dogma 
of  the  infallibility  of  the  pope  is  a  legitimate  outcome  from  the 
dogma  of  Church-imallibility :  it  has  heen  practically  Sicted 
upon  by  the  Roman  curia  for  a  number  of  centuries,  and 
the  Church  has  acquiesced,  as  a  matter  of  course,  in  this 
action  of  the  papal  see.  Papal  infallibility  and  Church  in- 
fallibility are  intimately  interwoven;  on  admitting  the  latter, 
the  former  must  be  conceded. 

Before  the  Vatican  definition,  all  Roman  Catholics  were 
agreed  that  the  head  of  the  Church  and  the  body  together 
are  infallible ;  but  the  question  was  discussed  for  a  long 
period  whether  this  infallibility  resides  primarily  and  prin- 
cipally in  the  head  or  in  the  body.  This  question  distinguished 
their  divines  into  two  schools,  bitterly  opposed  to  each  other 
— the  one  maintaining  that  the  giit  of  infallibility  resides 


44  Roman  Catholicism. 

primarily  in  tlie  pope,  wlio  communicates  it  to  the  Church  ; 
the  other  teaching  that  it  is  esentially  possessed  by  the  Church, 
and  that  the  pope,  as  head  of  the  Church,  participates  in  it 
by  agreeing  with  her.  At  length,  this  warmly  debated  ques- 
tion came  to  a  crisis,  and  we  have  seen  that  in  the  Vatican 
council  (1870)  the  papal  party  gained  the  day.  If  the 
Church  is  infallible,  it  is  but  reasonable  that  this  prerogative 
should  be  vested  in  its  head.  Theoretically,  this  dogma  does 
not  change  the  complexion  of  Eomanism ;  for  the  pope,  in 
issuing  infallible  decrees,  does  not  claim  to  stand  isolated 
and  in  his  individual  capacity.  He  is  supposed  to  speak  as 
the  head,  united  with  the  body,  to  think  and  feel  with  the 
body,  and  after  having  ascertained  its  consensus,  to  speak 
finally  as  the  mouthpiece  of  the  body  ex  cathedra — in  his 
official  capacity.  Pope  and  Church  are  still  believed  to  par- 
ticipate mutually  and  unitedly  in  the  gift  of  infallibility,  as 
before  the  Vatican  decree. 

Such  is  the  way  in  which  Roman  Catholics  look  upon  papal 
infallibility.  With  them  the  Vatican  decree  effected  noth- 
ing more  than  a  removal  of  a  cause  of  bitter  division  between 
two  leading  schools  of  theology,  and  a  healing  of  old  sores 
that  embittered  them  each  against  the  other.  We  shall  see, 
in  this  course  of  lectures,  whether  they  are  right  in  their  views 
on  papal  infallibility. 

From  what  I  have  said  it  is  evident  that  the  very  essence 
of  Eomanism  consists  in  the  belief  in  Church  infallibility, 
and  that  by  refuting  this  doctrine  we  demolish  the  very  bul- 
wark of  the  Church  of  Rome.  To  consider  this  subject  in  its 
principal  bearings  is  the  object  of  the  following  lectures.  In 
order  to  render  them  as  useful  as  possible,  I  shall  endeavour, 
whilst  I  refute  errors,  to  establish  in  their  place,  the  true  and 
solid  foundation  oj  our  Jaith. 


LECTUEE   II. 

TEE  LIVING  VOICE  OF  THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  BIBLE. 

THE  all-pervading  element  of  Roman  Catholicism  is  the 
doctrine  of  Church-infallibility.  It  is  this  dogma  which, 
in  the  eye  of  the  Roman  Catholic,  invests  his  Church  with 
Divine  authority,  and  endears  her  to  his  heart.  Whilst 
with  a  vast  number  of  Protestants  the  word  Church  has  no 
fixed  and  precise  meaning,  and  with  others  the  idea  of  a 
Church  has  almost  disappeared  so  that  no  traces  of  organic 
Church-life  are  perceptible;  to  the  member  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  it  possesses  a  real  and  all-important  significance ;  to 
his  mind  it  presents  a  very  clear  and  well-defined  idea,  and 
to  his  spiritual  life  it  is  a  living  organism.  He  is  a  Church- 
man, in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word. 

Nor  must  we  think  that  he  has  no  weighty  arguments  for 
these  determined  views  and  for  the  strong  attachment  he 
bears  to  his  Church.  Indeed,  so  powerful  and  convincing 
does  he  consider  the  proofs  in  favour  of  Church  infallibility 
that,  whilst  at  times  doubting  the  truth  of  other  tenets  of 
his  Church,  he  finds  no  reason  to  doubt  her  infallibility; 
hence  the  great  difficulty  in  convincing  him  of  his  errors.  A 
Protestant  would  find  it  a  difficult  task  to  understand  the 
mind  of  a  learned  and  well-meaning  Roman  Catholic,  to  feel 
with  him,  and  lead  him  out  of  his  narrow  system  into  some- 
thing nobler  and  better.  To  clear  the  way  for  this  task,  let 
us  first  make  some  elementary  remarks  and  definitions. 


4S  Roman  Catholicism^ 

First,  let  us  come  to  a  clear  understanding  of  the  word 
Churcli.  We  believe  that  it  is  a  society  "built  on  the  foun- 
dation of  the  Apostles  and  prophets,  Christ  Himself  being  the 
chief  corner-stone,"  having  a  contiauous  existence  from  apos- 
tolic times  to  our  own,  and  possessing  an  organic  vitality,  by 
virtue  of  which  its  members  profess  the  same  faith,  partake 
of  the  same  sacraments,  are  united  by  communion  of  charity, 
animated  by  the  same  hope,  and  governed  in  the  manner  in- 
dicated by  Christ  and  His  Apostles. 

Now,  although  Boman  Catholics  may  not  object  to  the 
substance  of  this  definition,  still  they  vastly  difier  from  us 
when  they  explain  it  in  detail.  Thus  the  form  of  government 
pointed  out  in  the  New  Testament  is  according  to  their 
theory  a  visible  spiritual  monarchy,  with  the  pope  at  its 
headj  union  in  charity  means  union  with,  and  subjection  to 
the  bishop  of  Rome  \  instead  of  two,  they  admit  seven  sacra- 
ments and  give  them  a  value  and  efficacy  we  cannot  concede; 
their  views  of  apostolic  succession  differ  considerably  from 
our  doctrine  of  a  continuous  and  uninterrupted  existence 
from  the  apostles  to  our  days. 

These  differences  may  be  in  some  degree  understood  when 
we  reflect  that  Roman  Catholics  give  a  preponderating  in- 
fluence to  the  outward  or  visible  element  of  the  Church. 
We,  like  them,  admit  two  elements  in  the  constitution  of 
the  Church,  namely,  the  invisible  or  inward,  and  the  visible 
or  outward  part.  None  will  deny  that  every  living  society 
has  these  two  constituents.  The  invisible  element  of  the 
Church  is  the  Word  of  God — not  the  letter  but  the  spirit — 
the  grace  of  God,  the  Holy  Ghost  pervading  the  whole  body 
of  the  Church,  breathing  where  He  listeth,  enlightening  the 
mind,  changing  the  heart,  strengthening  and  comforting  the 
whole  man.     The  visible  or  outward  element  comprises  alj 


The  Living  Voice  of  the  Church  and  Bible.      47 

that  can  be  perceived  by  our  senses,  such  as  the  members 
of  the  Church,  preaching,  rites,  ceremonies,  &c. 

There  exists,  no  doubt,  a  mutual  and  reciprocal  influence 
between  these  two  elements  which  tends  to  propagate  and 
perpetuate  the  Church.  Whilst  we  exclude  neither  of  them, 
we  must  be  careful  to  give  to  each  its  proper  place.  It  is 
evident  that  the  inner  element  ought  to  have  the  preponder- 
ance over  the  external  one,  the  Spirit  over  the  senses,  the 
Word  of  God  over  the  word  of  man. 

It  appears  not  to  be  thus  in  the  Koman  Catholic  system, 
where  the  external  and  visible  element  manifestly  prevails. 
The  adherent  of  Rome  considers  Christianity  chiefly  as 
something  outward.  This  is  manifest  in  all  his  religious 
practices.  The  worship  through  the  senses  prevails  over 
the  intellectual  and  spiritual  worship.  His  religion  is 
sacramental;  outward  signs  and  rites  are  with  him  the  efiec- 
tual  means  and  instruments  to  which  God's  grace  is  promised 
and  without  which  it  is  impossible  to  obtain  it.  Evidently, 
this  natural  tendency  of  man  for  the  outward  and  tangible 
has,  perhaps  unconsciously,  been  the  reason  why  the  living 
voice  of  the  Church  has  been  invested  with  infallibility. 

We  agree  with  the  Roman  Catholic  that  the  Church  is  in- 
fallible, but  we  difier  from  him  as  to  the  seat  of  that  infalli- 
bility. We  maintain  that  it  resides  in  the  inner  element  of 
the  Church,  namely,  in  the  Word  of  God  contained  in  the 
Bible  and  deposited  within  the  Church.  We  believe  that 
the  Bible  is  the  infallible  element  of  the  Church,  and  that  on 
this  account  only,  and  on  no  other,  she  is  said  to  be  in- 
fallible, ^^the  pilla/r  and  ground  of  the  truth.^^  We  contend 
that  a  member  of  the  Church  can,  as  far  as  is  necessary  for 
his  salvation,  obtain  the  truth,  with  sufficient  certainty,  by 
applying  to  the  Bible  the  infallible  element  of  the  Church. 


48  Roman  Catholicism. 

The  Roman  Catholic,  on  the  contrary,  affirms  that  the 
gift  of  infallibility  resides  primarily  in  the  outward  element, 
namely,  the  living  voice  of  the  Church,  so  that  if  any  one 
wishes  to  know  the  truth,  he  must  apply  to  the  Church.  But 
he  maintains  that  the  truth  she  proclaims  is  not  new,  but 
contained  in  a  two-fold  depository — ^the  Bible  and  tradition, 
which  are  entrusted  to  her  keeping  and  guardianship.  He 
believes  that  both  the  Bible  and  tradition  are  a  dead  and 
unintelligible  letter  if  we  separate  them  from  the  living 
voice  of  the  Church.  He  maintains  that  it  is  only  through 
the  Chiu'ch  that  we  possess  them  and  are  enabled  to  understand 
them ;  nay,  some  of  their  divines  go  so  far  as  to  assert  that 
the  Church  could  live  and  flourish  without  the  Bible. 

In  this  connection,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  by  the 
term  Church  they  do  not  understand  the  whole  body  of  its 
members,  but  only  the  teaching  portion ;  and  of  these  we 
must  again  exclude  the  priesthood  and  inferior  clergy  as  not 
participating  in  the  gift  of  infallibility.  Only  the  bishops, 
with  the  pope  at  their  head,  as  strictly  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles, are  held  to  be  endued  with  the  power  of  issuing  infallible 
decrees  and  definitions  binding  upon  all  the  members,  and 
they,  therefore,  constitute  the  infallible  Church.  Here 
again,  we  remark  that  they  are  believed  to  enjoy  this  pre- 
rogative, not  individually,  but  collectively.  It  must;  be  ascer- 
tained whether  the  whole  episcopate  speaks,  or  only  a  portion 
of  it ;  and  this  infallible  teaching  body  of  the  Church  may 
utter  infallible  dogmas,  either  assembled  in  a  general 
council,  or  dispersed  throughout  the  world. 

Again,  in  order  to  avoid  all  misconception  in  the  discus- 
sion of  this  controversy,  we  must  see  what  limits  they  set  to 
this  infallibility.  They  say,  it  is  not  an  inspiratim  ;  they 
allow  that  the  Bible  alone  is  inspired ;  they  look  upon  it  as 


The  Living  Voice  of  the  Church  and  Bible.      49 

an  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  promised  and  given  by  Christ 
to  lead  the  Apostles  and  their  successors  into  all  truth.  They 
allow  that  this  assistance  does  not  exclude,  but  rather  pre- 
supposes, all  the  appliances  of  human  enquiry  and  study. 
Before  the  episcopate  establishes  a  doctrine  as  a  dogma  of 
faith,  it  is  required  to  look  deeply  into  the  deposit  of  faith, 
consult  Scripture  and  tradition,  and  if,  after  long  and  mature 
enquiry  into  these  sources,  it  finds  that  the  dogma  has  been 
held  semper,  uhique  et  ah  omnibus — always,  everywhere  and 
by  all — it  is  justified  in  declaring  that  it  is  a  Catholic 
doctrine,  and  must  be  held  and  believed  by  all  members 
of  the  Church,  under  pain  of  excommunication.  This  enquiiy 
they  believe  so  to  be  assisted  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  the 
result  of  it  is  infallible  truth. 

Koman  Catholic  theologians  usually  divide  their  treatise 
on  Church-infallibility  into  two  parts.  The  first  part  is 
general  j  in  its  course,  they  endeavour  to  prove  a  priori,  i.  e. 
without  considering  their  own  Church,  that  the  Church  of 
Christ  is  endowed  with  the  gift  of  infallibility.  The  second 
division  is  particular,  and  applies  the  principle  established  in 
the  first  part  to  their  own  Church,  thus  proving  that,  of 
all  Churches  calling  themselves  Christians,  the  Church  of 
Rome  alone  can  lay  claim  to  infallibility,  and  is  therefore 
the  only  Church  of  Christ  deserving  the  confidence  of  man. 
We  shall  follow  this  division,  and  prove,  first,  that  the 
Church  of  Christ  is  not  infallible,  in  the  E/Oman  Catholic 
sense ;  and  secondly,  that  the  Church  of  Rome,  instead  of 
being  infallible,  has  greatly  deviated  from  the  path  of  truth, 
and  that  because  of  this  very  doctrine  of  Church-infallibility. 

At  the  very  outset' of  our  discussion,  we  ask  our  Roman 
Catholic  brethren  whether  the  doctrine  of  Church-infallibility 
moetji  the  object  for  wiiich  they  bo  ttrdently  contend,  namely,. 

4r 


50  Roman  Catholicisnu 

the  attainment  of  an  infallible  faith  based  altogfether  on 
divine  authority.  Surely,  they  will  agree  with  us  that  it  is 
not  self-evident  j  they  will  certainly  not  pretend  that  the 
mark  of  infallibility  is  so  clearly  stamped  on  the  episcopate 
as  to  elicit  at  once  the  faith  of  man,  however  ready  he  may 
be  to  grasp  at  any  evidence  that  promises  to  lead  him  to  the 
attainment  of  truth.  This  doctrine,  then,  requires  to  be 
demonstrated  by  such  proofs  and  arguments  as  will  convince 
the  mind  beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt.  But  these  argu- 
ments are  only  the  work  of  the  human  mind,  which  is  liable 
to  error  and  mistake,  and,  whilst  they  may  convince  some, 
will  be  rejected  by  others.  Roman  Catholics  profess  to  be- 
lieve in  the  revealed  truths  of  God,  on  the  infallible  authority 
of  the  Church  ;  and  they  believe  in  the  latter  because  they 
are  convinced  of  it  by  the  arguments  of  fallible  human 
reason.  Who  does  not  see  that  such  a  method  of  procedure 
cannot  imbue  the  mind  with  infallible  divine  faith  1  Whilst 
they  profess  a  belief  in  the  infallible  Church,  they  really 
believe  in  the  correctness  of  the  arguments  by  which  they 
establish  that  infallibility,  and  nothing  more. 

It  appears  to  me  that  the  rule  of  faith  should  suppose 
nothing  prior  on  which  it  depends  for  its  certainty  ;  and  if 
that  something  prior  is  human  reason,  what  else  can  I  call 
it  but  rationalism  %  And  however  strongly  Koman  Catholics 
may  repudiate  this  imputation,  however  vehemently  they 
may  clamour  that  their  Church  is  the  bulwark  of  faith 
against  rationalism ;  still  if  we  consider  the  basis  of  their 
rule  of  faith  and  the  vast  amount  of  philosophy  that  enters 
into  the  defence  of  their  distinctive  dogmas,  we  cannot  conceal 
from  ourselves  the  fact  that  the  whole  Roman  system  is 
tainted  with  rationalism. 

But  they  retort  against  us  that  we,  too,  must  suppose  a 


The  Living  Voice  of  the  Church  and  Bible.       51 

certain  amount  of  r^soning  before  we  can  admit  the  Bible 
as  the  infallible  element  of  the  Church.  We  answer  that 
our  position  is  entii^ely  different  from  theirs.  We  base  the 
authority  of  the  Bible  on  no  human  arguments,  as  they  estab- 
lish the  doctrine  of  infallibility ;  but  we  take  it  on  its  own 
merits.  Without  any  arg-umentation,  we  find  that  the  Bible 
is  the  great  book,  the  only  book  of  an  historical  and  provi- 
dential importance,  admirable  in  its  origin  and  relation  to 
all  mankind.  It  excites,  therefore,  our  attention,  and 
stimulates  in  us  an  almost  irresistible  interest.  We  find, 
without  any  logical  process,  that  it  is  and  always  has  been 
the  book  of  the  Church,  and  that  whatever  truth  and  life 
there  is  in  the  Church  has  been  drawn  from  its  pages.  We 
open  it,  read  it  attentively  and  with  a  prayerful  dispo- 
sition, and  we  find  that  all  the  praises  we  have  heard  of  this 
wonderful  book  are  fully  justified.  As  we  read  on,  the 
truth  contained  in  it  strikes  our  mind,  touches  our  con- 
science, impresses  deeply  our  whole  being.  I  cannot  enter 
here  into  details,  but  this  much  I  unhesitatingly  say,  that 
the  book  has  in  itself  the  internal  evidence  of  truth,  and 
bears  witness  of  its  divine  origin.  There  may  be  obscure 
passages,  and  surely  there  are,  but  who  can  all  at  once  under- 
stand the  wonderful  works  of  God  ?  The  more  we  read  it 
with  a  fitting  disposition  of  mind  and  heart,  the  more  we 
understand  of  it ;  and  that  which  we  understand  we  cannot 
help  but  acknowledge  to  be  divine  truth  ;  by  virtue  of 
this  we  are  compelled  to  believe  that  those  parts  which  we 
do  not  as  yet  understand  are  also  Divine.  We  need  no 
external  proofs,  however  profound  and  learned,  to  establish 
the  authority  of  this  book.  We  simply  say.  Come  and 
see  ;  here  is  a  book  that  bears  unmistakable  evidence  on  its 
face  of  being  the  truth  ot  God ;  and  if  you  read  it  guided  by 


62  Roman  Catholicism, 

the  Spirit  of  God,  you  will  see  as  we  see,  and  be  fully  satis- 
fied. Thus  our  faith  is  not  rationalism  in  disguise,  but  is 
based  on  a/ac^ — a  fact  of  which  God  Himself  is  the  author — 
a  divine  fact;  hence  we  confidently  lay  claim  to  a  faith  bright 
with  evidence. 

It  is,  therefore,  obvious  that  the  manner  in  which  we  estab- 
lish our  rule  of  faith  is  altogether  different  from  that  in 
which  Roman  Catholics  establish  theirs.  With  us,  he  who 
wishes  to  overthrow  the  Church  of  Christ,  must  first  over- 
throw the  Bible;  but  with  the  Eoman  Catholic,  the  de- 
molition of  the  arguments  by  which  infallibility  is  estab- 
lished is  sufficient  to  overturn  and  destroy  the  whole  edifice 
of  the  Church. 

The  Roman  Catholic  will  reply  that  he  fails  to  see  how 
the  arguments  by  which  he  establishes  the  infallibility  of  the 
Church  can  taint  Ms  system  with  rationalism.  He  may  allow 
that  such  would  be  the  case  if  they  were  drawn  from  pure 
reason  and  independent  of  facts;  but  he  claims  that  the 
arguments  in  favour  of  infallibility  derive  their  force  from 
the  very  nature  of  the  Christian  verities.  To  us  this  does 
not  appear  to  alter  the  case ;  for  a  rule  of  faith  must  be  a 
self-evident  fact,  and  in  no  way  dependent  on  human  rea- 
soning for  its  credibility.  However  we  shall  see  what  value 
his  arguments  possess. 

The  first  argument  by  which  Roman  Catholics  seek  to  de- 
molish our  position  on  the  Bible  as  the  only  infallible  rule 
of  faith,  and  imagine  they  establish  the  infallibility  of 
the  Church,  is  the  existence  of  the  Church  prior  to  the 
Bible.  They  maintain  that  the  Church  was  fully  established 
and  existed  for  a  considerable  time  before  the  Bible  was  com- 
pleted. If  then  there  was  from  the  first  an  infallible  element 
in  the  Church,  the  Bible  could  not  be  that  element,  since 


The  Living  Voice  of  the  Church  and  Bible.      53 

no  other  infallible  rule  then  existed  than  the  living  voice  of 
the  Church  j  and  if  the  Church  was  infallible  in  pre-biblical 
times,  why  not  afterwards  ? 

We  answer  that  this  prior  existence  of  the  Church  before 
the  Bible  is  only  apparent.  In  reality,  the  Bible  existed  be- 
fore the  Church.  All  will  agree  that  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  Testament  existed  before  the  Church ;  nay,  Christ  and 
His  Apostles  built  their  divine  mission  on  them  by  con- 
stant appeals  to  them.  Moreover  none  will  deny  that  the 
Gospel  is  contained  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  that  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Church  is  clearly  foreshadowed  therein.  The 
Christian  Church,  therefore,  depended  greatly  as  to  her  rule 
of  faith  on  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  especially  as  the 
first  Christians  were  mostly  converts  from  Judaism  who 
needed  constant  reference  to  their  sacred  writings  as  a  rule  of 
faith.  Further,  as  the  Church  of  Christ  was  to  be  "  built 
on  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles,  Christ  Himself  being 
the  chief  corner-stone,"  she  cannot  be  said  to  have  fully  ex- 
isted before  their  death.  The  building  of  the  Church  on 
this  foundation  and  the  writing  of  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures  commenced  and  proceeded  concurrently  until  both 
were  completed  by  the  same  workmen,  so  that  at  their  death 
the  Church  stood  forth  with  a  complete  constitution,  and  a 
rule  of  faith  given  by  God's  Spirit  to  lead  men  into  all  truth, 
"  even  to  the  end  of  the  world."  We  are  justified,  therefore, 
in  concluding  that  the  Bible  existed  prior  to  the  Church. 

But  should  this  process  of  reasoning  not  fully  satisfy  our 
Roman  Catholic  brethren,  let  them  reflect  that  the  state  of 
the  Church  duririg  the  lifetime  of  the  Apostles  difiered 
materially  from  her  condition  iu  post-Apostolical  times ;  for 
the  Apostles  were  individually  inspired,  or  they  would  not 
have  been  qualified  for  their  office  as  founders  of  the  Church. 


54  Roman  Catholicism. 

They  were  inspired,  or  the  promises  of  Christ  to  them  would 
have  failed  of  accomplishment ;  they  were  inspired,  or  they 
could  not  have  given  so  many  miraculous  proofs  of  the 
special  presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  nor  would  they,  in  their 
writings,  have  either  directly  or  indii^ectly  so  repeatedly  laid 
claim  to  inspiration.  We  shall  not  enter  here  into  the 
nature  of  this  inspiration  \  we  simply  maintain  that  the  in- 
spired founders  of  the  Church,  by  virtue  of  their  office,  were 
a  rule  of  faith;  but  when  they  departed  this  life,  their 
writings  were  looked  upon  as  the  apostolical  foundation  on 
which  the  Church  was  built.  And  what  better  substitute 
could  we  have  for  the  living  voice  of  the  Apostles  than  their 
inspired  writings  % 

But  here  Koman  Catholics  step  forward,  and  endeavour  to 
prove  that  the  infallibility  of  the  Apostles  did  not  die  with 
them,  but  is  shared  by  their  successors,  not  indeed  indi- 
vidually and  personally,  but  in  their  official  and  collective 
capacity.  Let  us  consider  this  argument  which  contains 
many  interesting  points  in  our  next  lecture. 


LECTURE    III. 

CONSIDERATION  OF  TEE  SCRIPTURE  ARGUMENTS  IN 
FAVOUR  OF  INFALLIBILITY. 

ROMAN  Catholics  maintain  that  the  gift  of  infallibility 
which  the  Apostles  possessed  did  not  become  extinct  in 
the  Church  after  their  death,  but  was  continued  in  their  su«- 
cessors,  the  bishops,  inasmuch  as  they  constitute  the  teaching 
body. 

We  might  ask  here,  if  the  bishops,  by  virtue  of  their  Apos- 
tolic succession,  are  infallible,  why  do  they  possess  this  pre- 
rogative, not  individually,  but  only  as  a  body  1  What  justifies 
them  in  making  this  distinction  ^  Are  not  the  priests  also, 
according  to  their  theory,  successors  of  the  Apostles  'i  Why 
then  are  they  not  infallible  ?  Do  not  both  laity  and  clergy 
together  constitute  the  Church  1  Why  confine  the  infallible 
authority  of  the  Church  to  a  mere  fraction]  Why  this 
arbitrary  system  of  minimizing  which  is  so  characteristic  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  not  only  here  but  also  in  other  mat- 
ters? We  have  no  time  now  to  enter  upon  these  questions; 
let  Roman  Catholics  answer  them  if  they  can.  We  content 
ourselves  with  demolishing  the  foundation  of  this  minimizing 
system  of  infallibility. 

We  believe  that  the  Apostles,  as  such,  had  no  successors. 
As  Apostles  they  were  the  founders  and  organizers  of  the 
Church,  and  who  does  not  see  that,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
such  an  office  expired  at  their  death  1    True,  they  appointed 


56  Roman  Catholicism, 

bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  but  these  were  wedded,  as  it 
were,  only  to  local  Churches,  and  their  office  and  authority 
were  far  different  from  those  of  the  Apostles  j  nor  do  we 
anywhere  read  that  they  ever  laid  claim  to  Apostolical  pre- 
rogatives. If,  then,  the  Apostles,  as  such,  had  no  successors, 
and  if  they  enjoyed  the  gift  of  infallibility  only  as  Apostles, 
what  foundation  has  the  episcopate  for  claiming  infallibility 
as  full  successors  of  the  Apostles  % 

Let  them  not  say  that  the  gift  of  infallibility  resides  in  the 
whole  Church,  but  that  the  bishops  alone  practically  exercise 
it,  because,  by  virtue  of  .their  office,  they  are  the  representa- 
tives of  the  Church.  Where  in  the  Bible  do  they  find  this 
theory  1  It  is  in  the  nature  of  representation  that  represen- 
tatives should  be  chosen  by  the  parties  whom  they  represent. 
Who  appoints  the  bishops  ?  Their  dioceses  1  No  j  the  people 
have  no  part  whatever  in  the  election.  They  are  altogether 
the  creatures  of  the  pope,  who,  in  appointing  them,  has  no 
regard  whatever  to  the  voice  of  the  people ;  they  are  bishops 
hy  favour  of  the  Apostolic  See.  How  then  can  they  be  said 
to  be  representatives  of  the  people,  and  as  such  enjoy  the 
gift  of  infallibility  ? 

But  granting,  for  argument's  sake,  that  the  bishops  are  the 
successors  of  the  Apostles;  we  cannot  see  by  what  reasoning 
Boman  Catholics  can  establish  the  infallibility  of  the  episco- 
pate. They  claim  to  prove  it  from  the  Scriptures;  but  they 
teach  also  that  we  cannot  know  the  existence  of  Scripture  as 
such,  nor  believe  in  its  divine  inspiration  until  we  are 
taught  and  assured  of  it  by  the  Church.  They  prove  the 
infallibility  of  the  Church  by  the  Bible,  and  the  canon  and 
inspiration  of  the  Bible  by  the  infallible  teaching  of  the 
Church.  Is  not  this  proving  the  same  by  the  same,  or  what 
logicians  call  a  cir cuius  vitiosus? 


Scripture  Arguments  in  Favour  of  Infallibility.     57 

They  answer,  No;  for  when  we  prove  the  infallibility  of 
the  Church  by  the  Bible  we  consider  the  latter  merely  as  a 
book  of  the  highest  human  authority,  a  book  of  the  greatest 
credibility;  and  after  having  proved  by  its  testimony  the 
infallibility  of  the  Church,  we  prove  by  the  teaching  of  the 
Church  that  this  book  is  more  than  human — that  it  is  the 
inspired  Word  of  God.  Thus  we  do  not  prove  the  same  by 
the  same,  for  we  consider  the  Bible  under  two  aspects,  first 
as  merely  human,  and  then  as  a  divine  book. 

Behold,  what  a  formidable  apparatus  of  human  ratiocina- 
tion this  doctrine  of  infallibility  requires  !  First,  by  all  the 
rules  of  criticism,  and  by  a  long  series  of  human  argumenta- 
tion they  must  prove  that  every  single  book  in  the  canon  of 
the  Scriptures  is  genuine,  authentic,  and  true;  and  after  hav- 
ing done  so,  they  have  advanced  only  one  step ;  they  have 
proved  only  that  the  Bible  is  a  book  of  human  authority. 
The  next  step  is  to  prove,  by  a  similar  apparatus  of  learning, 
that  this  book  teaches  the  infallibility  of  the  Church.  After 
having  gone  through  all  this  course  of  reasoning,  have  they 
absolute  certainty  as  to  the  truth  of  all  their  premises,  the 
correctness  and  concatenation  of  their  inferences  %  And  who 
does  not  see  that  only  men  of  talent  and  learning  are 
able  to  undertake  this  formidable  labour,  and  successfully  to 
complete  it  %  What  are  the  rest  of  their  members  to  do  % 
Since  infallibility  is  not  self-evident,  where  will  they  find 
reasons  "  for  the  hope  that  is  in  them  ?•"  Must  they  believe 
the  Church  infallible  because  some  of  their  learned  divines 
tell  them  that,  after  a  long  course  of  theological  labour,  tliey 
can  prove  it  from  a  book  of  the  highest  human  authority  % 
Does  it  not  thus  appear  that  faith  in  the  infallibility  of  the 
Church,  both  of  the  learned  and  the  ignorant,  rests  only  on 
human  authority  %    And  does  not  this  reciprocal  proving,  iirst 


68  Roman  Catholicism. 

from  the  Bible  as  a  human  book  that  the  Church  is  infallible, 
and  then  by  the  voice  of  the  Church  that  this  same  human 
book  is  inspired,  seem  too  much  like  paying  a  debt  of 
gratitude  to  this  book,  by  conferring  upon  it  the  title  of  in- 
spired, because  it  has  done  service  to  the  Church  %  Such  a 
process  is  calculated  to  destroy  all  faith  both  in  the  Bible 
and  the  Church. 

If  the  Bible  is  inspired,  that  inspiration  must  be  its  all- 
pervading  element ;  it  must  be  the  stamp  impressed  upon  it 
by  its  Divine  Author,  so  that  every  soul  thirsting  after  truth 
may  readily  perceive  it  and  be  satisfied.  If  an  extraneous 
authority,  and  that,  too,  an  authority  having  not  a  self-evi- 
dent and  palpable,  but  only  a  demonstrable  claim  to  infalli- 
bility, gives  the  Bible  its  certificate  of  inspiration,  there  is 
every  reason  for  looking  upon  it  with  suspicion.  Hence  the 
Church  of  Rome,  by  thus  dealing  with  the  rule  of  faith, 
appears  to  me  to  lead  us  into  a  labyrinth  of  doubt  and  un- 
certainty. 

Let  us  suppose,  now,  the  Koman  Catholic  has  proved  the 
authenticity,  genuineness  and  truth  of  the  Bible  as  a  human 
composition,  how  does  he  prove  from  it  that  the  episcopate, 
as  the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  are  endowed  with  infalli- 
bility? 

He  endeavours  to  prove  it,  first,  from  all  those  texts  con- 
taining the  promises  of  Christ  to  the  Apostles  and  the 
Church,  securing  their  infallibility  and  consequent  authority. 
**  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 
(Matt,  xxviii,  20.)  "Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock 
I  will  build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  pre- 
vail against  it."  (Matt,  xvi,  18.)  "Ye  are  witnesses  of  these 
things.  And  behold,  I  send  the  promise  of  my  Father  upon 
you ;   but  tarry  ye  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem  until  ye  be  en- 


ScripUire  Arguments  in  Favour  of  Infallibility.    59 

dued  with  power  from  on  high."  (Luke  xxiv,  47-49.)  "When 
the  Spirit  of  truth  is  come,  he  will  guide  you  into  all 
truth."  (John  xvi,  13.)  From  these  and  similar  promises, 
it  is  contended  that  Christ  promised  to  be  with  His  Church 
to  the  end  of  the  world  j  he  promised  her  the  Holy  Ghost 
to  be  with  her  and  lead  her  into  all  truth  j  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  descended  visibly  upon  the  Apostles  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  and  that  he  was  with  them  in  their  first  council 
at  Jerusalem,  and  guided  them  to  infallible  decrees. 

"We  answer  that,  although  these  and  similar  texts  prove 
that  the  Apostles  were  especially  assisted  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  as  founders  of  the  Church,  none  of  them  promises  in- 
fallibility either  to  the  whole  body  of  the  Church,  or  to  the 
episcopate  alone.  We  grant  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  to  be 
with  the  Church,  as  well  as  with  the  Apostles,  until  the  end 
of  the  world ;  but  we  maintain  that  we  must  also  admit  a 
difference  in  the  manner  in  which  he  assists  either.  Surely, 
no  one  will  pretend  that  He  was  to  be  manifested  in  the  same 
form  and  measui*e  to  the  Apostles  and  to  the  Church,  after 
their  death. 

How  are  we  to  settle  this  point,  since  Scripture  appears  to 
be  silent  about  it !  We  think,  the  nature  of  the  Apostolic 
office  and  mission  and  that  of  the  Church  after  their  death 
gives  us  a  clear  and  definite  answer  to  the  question.  He 
was  with  the  Apostles  in  their  official  capacity  as  witnesses 
in  order  to  give  an  infallible  testimony  of  what  Christ  had 
taught  and  done  for  us.  We  think  it  a  significant  fact  that 
there  were  only  twelve  apostles  and  that  they  were  specially 
chosen  by  Christ,  in  order  that  none  might  arrogate  to  him- 
self the  same  privileges  which  they,  as  the  chosen  twelve, 
possessed.  St.  Paul  was  a  particular  vessel  of  election  ;  he 
was   a   witness   of    the    revelation   he   had    especially   re- 


60  Roman  Catholicism, 

ceiTed ;  but  we  find  that  none  whom  the  Apostles  or- 
dained claimed  or  enjoyed  the  same  privileges.  To  the 
apostles  the  truth  was  delivered  by  Christ  and  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  they  were  the  original  receivers ;  they  planted  the 
faith  by  teaching  what  was  necessary  to  be  believed  ;  and 
they  established  the  Church.  And  like  the  inspired  prophets 
of  old;  they  were  moved  not  only  to  teach  by  word  of  mouth, 
but  also  to  deposit  the  saving  truth  in  written  records,  for 
the  sure  guidance  and  salvation  of  future  generations.  The 
Holy  Ghost  was  with  them  both  as  witnesses  and  as  writers, 
in  order  to  establish  the  truths  of  Christianity  in  the  world. 
Certainly  we  all  agree  that  the  Church  was  to  be  built  on  an 
infallible  foundation,  and  that  therefore  the  apostles  as  such 
were  alone  endowed  with  the  gift  of  infallibility. 

But  we  see  also  clearly  that,  when  the  Church  of  Christ 
was  once  founded  by  the  apostles,  and  when  the  needful 
amount  of  revealed  truth  was  once  infallibly  recorded  in  a 
book,  no  infallible  authority  was  necessary  for  the  teaching 
body  of  the  Church,  since  its  functions  differed  widely  from 
those  of  the  apostles.  The  certainty  that  its  dogmatic  system 
is  contained  in,  and  conformable  with  the  Bible  is  sufficient 
for  the  guidance  of  men  ;  and  this  certainty  may  safely  be 
attained  by  comparing  both  together.  Moreover  we  believe 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  assists  the  sincere  enquirer  in  securing 
this  certainty. 

All  will  concur  with  us  that  there  is  a  great  difference  be- 
tween certainty  and  infallibility.  He  that  is  infallible  cannot 
err ;  he  who  is  certain  can  err,  but  does  not  err;  he  has  evi- 
dence that  he  does  not  err  on  such  or  such  a  point,  and 
therefore  he  is  certain.  Now  we  have  in  the  Bible  the  in- 
fallible deposit  of  truth,  for  it  is  the  unerring  Word  of  God ; 
but  we  have  certainty  in  our  mind  when  we  acquire  the  truth 


Scripture  Arguments  in  Favour  of  Infallibility.     61 

from  the  Bible..  We  may  err,  but  we  have  reason  to  believe 
that  we  do  not  err.  The  Apostles  required  infallibility  in 
writing  the  Bible,  but  we  do  not  need  that  gift  in  reading 
and  preaching  the  truths  therein  contained;  certainty  is 
all  that  we  want.  We  are  enabled  to  acquire  this  certainty 
so  far  as  it  is  necessary  for  our  welfare ;  what  more  can  we 
desire  %  True,  we  ought  to  be  constantly  on  our  guard,  for, 
as  human  beings,  our  intellect  is  limited  and  we  are  liable  to 
error  \  but  God's  Spirit  assists  us  in  our  earnest  enquiries, 
and  when  we  are  certain  of  having  attained  to  the  truth  from 
the  infallible  Word,  let  us  be  content  and  give  thanks  to  the 
Spirit  who  vouchsafed  to  enlighten  us.  If  Roman  Catholics 
had,  as  reasonable  men,  been  satisfied  with  this  certainty,  and 
not  aimed  too  high  by  endeavouring  to  give  the  human  mind 
an  infallible  knowledge  of  the  truth,  they  would  never  have 
dreamed  of  endowing  the  living  voice  of  the  Church  with  in- 
fallibility, thereby  involving  themselves  in  the  intricacies 
of  a  system  that  oppresses  them  like  an  incubus  and  places 
all  reforms  within  the  Church  beyond  the  reach  of  possibility. 
If  we  gave  to  the  writings  of  the  Apostles  no  'providential 
significance  as  the  depository  of  divine  truth  for  all  ages ;  if 
we  looked  upon  them  as  mere  occasional  appendages  which 
the  Church  could  do  well  without;  if  we  considered  them 
dependent  as  regards  belief  in  their  inspiration,  and  also  their 
true  interpretation,  on  the  authority  of  the  post-apostolic 
Church ;  we  might,  probably,  feel  perplexed  and  allow  that 
Roman  Catholics  appear  to  be  right  in  claiming  continuous 
infallibility  for  the  living  voice  of  the  Church.  But  these 
suppositions  have  not  a  shadow  of  truth  in  their  favour.  Do 
not  the  sacred  writers  themselves  tell  us  that  they  write  not 
with  any  transient  object,  but  for  the  high  purpose  that  we 
may  obtain  the  truth,  believe  in  the  truth  and  be  saved  by 


62  Roman  Catholicism, 

it  %  Does  St.  John  consider  the  Scriptures  as  mere  temporary 
adjuncts,  or  as  passing  phenomena  in  the  life  of  the  Church, 
when  he  says,  "  These  things  were  written,  that  ye  might  be- 
lieve that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  believing 
ye  might  have  life  through  His  name."  (John  xx,  31.)  Or 
does  St.  Paul  think  little  of  the  Bible  when  he  writes,  "  AH 
Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for 
doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  right- 
eousness, that  the  man  of  God  might  be  perfect,  thoroughly 
furnished  unto  all  good  works."  (ii.  Tim.  iii.  16-17.) 
While  one  sacred  writer  constantly  refers  us  to  the  writings 
of  another,  not  one  of  them  ever  intimates  to  us  either  the 
necessity  or  the  existence  of  any  other  rule  of  faith.  It  is  an 
historical  fact  that  the  teachings  of  the  Apostles,  as  recorded 
in  Holy  Scripture,  were  considered  not  only  during  their 
life-time,  but  immediately  after  their  death,  as  the  only 
depository  of  divine  revelation.  If  it  were  otherwise,  why 
*  should  they  have  been  read  in  the  Christian  assemblies  as  an 
essential  part  of  their  religious  services,  even  during  the  life- 
time of  the  Apostles  %  Why  that  eagerness  to  collect  them 
immediately  into  one  book  %  "  Considering  the  poverty  of 
the  early  Christians,  the  persecutions  to  which  they  were 
subject,  the  imperfect  means  of  multiplying  co23ies  of  Scrip- 
ture at  their  disposal,  the  comparative  infrequency  of  inter- 
communication in  those  days,  the  Apostolic  writings  were 
disseminated  with  a  rapidity  and  acknowledged  with  a  uni- 
versality of  consent  truly  wonderful."  (Hodge's  Outlines  of 
Theol.,  p.  98). 

And  does  not  this  plainly  show  that  they  were  more  than 
mere  accidental  appendages  of  the  Church,  and  rather  held  a 
providential  place  in  God's  spiritual  government?  If  we 
read  the  writings  of  the  early  fathers  ot  the  Church,  especi- 


Scripture  Arguments  in  Favour  of  Infallibility,     63 

ally  those  who  lived  in  the  Apostolic  age,  we  find  that  they 
looked  upon  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament  as  the  in- 
spired Word  of  God,  and  quoted  copiously  from  their  pages. 
However  carefully  we  may  examine  these  patristic  writings, 
we  cannot  find  any  organized  body  of  Churchmen,  in  those 
early  times,  claiming  the  gift  of  infallibility.  On  the  con- 
trary, all  controversies  of  faith  were  settled  by  appealing  to 
the  Scriptures  and  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles  as  contained 
in  their  wi'itings.  Although  owing  to  the  difierent  schools, 
of  philosophy,  from  which  converts  were  made  to  Christianity 
religious  controversies,  in  those  early  times,  were  more  num- 
erous and  subtle  than  in  our  own  days;  yet  the  simple  appeal 
to  Scripture  was  considered  sufficient  to  settle  them.  In  the 
interpretation  of  Scripture,  sound  common  sense,  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  was  employed;  and  as  this  is 
universal,  and  eccentricity  the  exception,  appeal  was  some- 
times made  to  the  catholic  or  universal  belief  of  Christians, 
not  because  this  universal  consent  was  considered  the  in- 
fallible depository  of  faith,  but  as  an  external  and  additional 
argument  against  the  heretics  of  the  time.  This  appeal 
however  was  not  intended  to  prove  the  doctrines  in  question, 
but  only  to  confirm  the  proofs  taken  from  Scripture.  What 
we  have  here  briefly  stated,  in  these  paragraphs,  as  undoubted 
facts,  may  be  easily  verified  by  any  impartial  enquirer  who 
will  take  the  trouble  of  reading  the  works  of  the  early  Chris- 
tian wiiters,  or  of  consulting  the  productions  of  our  learned 
divines,  where  ample  quotations  from  the  Fathers  are  given 
in  proof  of  these  statements. 

From  what  we  have  said  it  may  be  safely  concluded  that 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost  were  present  in  a  difierent  manner 
with  the  Apostles  to  that  they  were  or  are  with  the  post- Apos- 
tolic Church.     With  the  Apostles  they  were  present  in  their 


6-^  Roman  Catholicism. 

teachings  and  writings  in  order  to  infallibly  establish  the 
Church  on  a  sure  foundation  and  to  give  us  the  deposit  of  faith 
for  all  ages.  This  required  infallibility.  With  the  post- Apos- 
tolic Church  the  Spiiit  is  present  in  order  to  preserve  and 
guard  the  Bible,  and  preach  the  doctrines  therein  con- 
tained. This  does  not  require  infallibility,  the  former  being 
the  continual  acknowledgment  of  an  historical  fact  estab- 
lished by  the  Apostles  and  the  latter  a  viva-voce  repetition 
and  explanation  of  doctrines  contained  in  the  sacred  records. 
The  office  of  the  Church,  since  the  death  of  the  apostles,  has 
been  to  use  all  her  endeavors  to  have  the  Scriptures  preserved, 
propagated,  preached,  read  both  at  public  worship  and  in 
private,  meditated  upon  and  practised.  Thus  the  Word  of 
God  is  the  infallible,  the  only  infallible  element  of  the 
Church,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  pervading  the  Church  certainly 
establishes  His  kingdom  in  the  hearts  of  believers. 

A  certain  degree  of  authority,  far  different  from  infalli- 
bility, was  claimed  by  the  episcopate  of  the  first  ages  of 
Christianity.  They  took  their  arguments,  in  refuting  here- 
tics and  schismatics,  from  the  written  Word  of  God,  not  from 
their  own  authority — their  own  ipse  dixit  It  was  only  when 
the  episcopate  obtained  high  political  influence  that  it  lost 
the  primitive  Apostolic  spirit,  becoming  haughty  and  des- 
potic, and  arrogating  to  itself  the  attribute  of  infallibility, 
an  attribute  which  only  the  greatest  spiritual  despotism  has 
ventured  to  assert.  This  despotism  of  a  pretended  infalli- 
bility commenced  with  the  dawn  of  the  Church's  political 
influence,  under  the  emperor  Constantino;  extended  itself 
gradually  over  a  wider  field  of  jurisdiction;  was  at  its  height 
in  the  middle  ages,  when  it  possessed  the  full  power  of 
crushing  in  the  bud  any  attempt  to  resist  its  usurped 
authority;  became  at  last  an  intolerable  scourge  of  mankind, 


Scripture  Arguments  in  Favour  of  Infallibility,     65 

until  God  took  pity  on  Christendom  and  by  the  Keformation 
struck  the  first  heavy  blow  at  its  unwarrantable  assumptions. 
Since  then  it  has  lost  a  great  deal  of  its  external  rigour  and 
splendour;  and  yet  in  spirit  it  exists  the  same  as  before. 
We  think  that  the  history  of  this  spiritual  absolutism  claim- 
ing infallibility  bears  sufficient  evidence  that  Christ  did  not 
wish  his  Church  to  be  deemed  infallible,  in  the  sense  of 
Roman  Catholicism.  Could  Christ  be  with  His  Church, 
could  He  send  the  Holy  Spirit  for  the  purpose  of  creating 
such  a  spiiutual  despotism  as  the  pages  of  history  reveal  to 
usl     Impossible. 

But  Roman  Catholics  insist  that  the  promises  of  Christ  to 
the  Apostles  must  have  a  difierent  meaning  from  that  which 
we  give  them,  because  the  Church  as  a  living  society  insti- 
tuted by  Christ  is  a  witness  of  Christ  and  His  doctrine,  by 
her  constant  profession  and  teaching,  so  that,  as  the  Apostles 
were  the  immediate  witnesses,  each  generation  of  the  Church 
is  also  a  witness  of  the  teaching  of  the  one  immediately  pre- 
ceding it.  They  argue  that  such  is  the  nature  of  the  witness- 
bearing  of  a  living  society,  that,  while  one  generation  is  in 
full  vigour,  the  preceding  one  still  lives  (though  gradually 
departing  out  of  existence)  to  correct  any  erroneous  teaching 
of  its  actual  successor ;  whilst  the  next  generation  is  in  its 
youth  and  may  be  carefully  taught  by  its  predecessor.  Thus 
three  generations  always  exist  partially  together,  and  may 
aid  and  correct  each  other  in  their  testimony.  This  is  the 
only  way  in  which  the  Church,  as  a  living  society,  bears  un- 
interrupted testimony  to  the  Apostolical  teaching.  Who 
does  not  see  that  both  the  writings  and  the  oral  teachings  of 
the  Apostles  come  within  the  scope  of  her  witness-bearing  ? 
You  cannot  know  what  the  Apostles  taught,  nor  can  you 
even  believe  in  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God  except  on  the 

5 


66  Roman  Catholicism. 

testimony  of  the  Church.  This  uninterrupted  testimony  of 
the  Church,  in  her  capacity  as  witness,  may  in  a  comprehen- 
sive sense,  be  called  tradition.  The  Bible  itself  is  a  part  of 
this  tradition-system;  it  has  been  handed  down,  together 
with  the  other  portions  of  the  teachings  of  Christ,  by  the 
Church  as  a  livmg  witness  of  God's  revealed  truths.  If  then, 
they  conclude,  the  promises  of  Christ  are  to  have  their  ac- 
complishment, if  there  must  consequently  be  an  infallible 
element  within  the  Church,  we  cannot  but  admit  that  the 
Church  must  be  itself  infallible. 

Let  us  examine  this  argument  in  our  next  Lecture* 


LECTUEE    IV. 

REVIEW  OF  THE  ARGUMENTS  DRAWN  FROM  THE 
OHUROH'S  OFFICE  AS  WITNESS-BEARER  —  TRADI- 
TION. 

WE  concluded  our  last  lecture  with  the  argument  of  the 
Koman  Catholics  that  the  Church  must  be  infallible 
on  account  of  her  office  as  witness.  They  endeavour  to 
strengthen  their  position  by  arguing  in  the  following 
manner  :  No  doubt,  we  agree  with  you  that  the  principal 
mission  of  the  apostles  was  to  be  "  witnesses  of  all  things 
which  Christ  did"  (Acts  x.,  39),  and  that  "they  were 
witnesses  chosen  before  God"  (Acts  x.,  41)  ;  but  we  dissent 
from  you  iu  regard  to  the  perpetuity  of  this  office  of  witness- 
bearing.  We  maintain  that  all  those  offices  and  gifts  of 
which  Christ,  in  conferring  them,  expressly  declared  that 
they  should  continue  "  unto  the  end  of  the  world  "  and  reach 
"  all  nations,"  did  not  die  out  with  the  apostles,  but  became 
the  heritage  of  the  Church.  Now,  that  this  witness-bearing 
of  the  apostles  is  one  of  these  offices  can  be  easily  proved 
from  different  texts  of  Scrij)ture ;  for  Christ  says,  "  And  this 
Gospel  of  the  Kingdom  shall  be  preached  in  all  the  world  for 
a  witness  unto  all  nations"  (Matt,  xxiv.,  14)  ;  and  again, 
"  Ye  shall  be  witnesses  unto  me  both  in  Jerusalem,  and  in 
all  Judea,  and  in  Samaria,  and  unto  the  uttermost  part  of 
of  the  earth"  (Acts  i.,  8);  and  in  another  place,  ''Go  ye, 
therefore,   and  teach   all  nations ;   and  lo  I  am  with    you 


68  Roman  Catholicism. 

alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  ivorld"  (Matt,  xxviii.,  19-20.) 
Now  if  we  reflect  that  the  office  of  witness  is  given  in  connec- 
tion with  the  promise  of  the  Spirit's  assistance,  we  must  con- 
clude that  the  Church,  too,  in  her  witness-bearing  capacity 
enjoys  the  same  divine  aid,  and  is  consequently  infallible. 

We  answer  that,  whilst  we  agree  with  the  Roman  Catholics 
that  the  Church  is  a  witness,  we  dissenc  from  them  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  she  performs  this  function.  Of  course,  as  a 
living  society  she  cannot  but  bear  witness  of  the  life  and  doc- 
trine of  her  Founder ;  at  the  same  time  we  contend  that  this 
witness-bearing  consists  in  preserving  and  keeping  the  Book 
written  by  the  inspii^ed  prophets  and  apostles  on  whom  she  is 
built,  and  in  preaching  the  doctrines  therein  contained.  For 
this  purpose  she  need  not  be  endowed  with  an  infallible 
mouth ;  certainty  is  all  that  is  required,  and  this  she  may  obtain 
by  using  an  adequate  amount  of  application  and  care.  Nor  do 
we  consider  this  witness-bearing  of  the  Church  absolutely 
necessary  to  assure  us  that  the  Bible  is  inspired,  for  as  a  rule 
of  faith  the  Book  must  be  altogether  independent  of  any- 
thing anterior ;  we  must  take  it  on  its  own  merits,  or  we 
cannot  possibly  have  a  rule  of  faith  at  all. 

Whilst  we  highly  respect  the  testimony  of  the  Church, 
Boman  Catholics,  here  as  elsewhere,  go  beyond  the  limits  of 
due  deference,  by  endowing  that  testimony  with  infallibility. 
We  tell  them  that,  instead  of  making  matters  of  faith  clearer 
and  easier,  by  this  adventitious  aid,  they  necessarily  involve 
themselves  in  a  maze  of  perplexity  ;  for  the  testimony  of  a 
continuous  and  ever-living  society  differs  essentially  from 
that  of  an  individual ;  and  therefore  we  must  pay  attention 
to  the  past  as  well  as  to  the  present. 

Roman  Catholics  teach  that,  in  regard  to  the  present,  the 
living  voice  of  the  episcopate  is  the  infallible    witness  of 


The  ChurcKs  Office  as  Witness-hearer.         69 

Christ's  doctrine,  and  that,  with  reference  to  the  past,  oral  tra- 
dition occupies  the  place  of  the  same  infallible  testimony  of  the 
Church  ;  for  what  else  is  oral  tradition  but  the  teaching  of 
different  generations  of  the  Church  so  closely  and  unin- 
terruptedly linked  together  in  their  life  and  belief  that,  by 
word  of  mouth,  one  generation  or  traditional  line  hands  down 
th€  teaching  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  to  the  next  one,  and 
so  on,  to  our  own  day  %  Even  the  Bible  is  but  the  written 
portion  of  this  tradition-system. 

Thus,  by  the  very  nature  of  their  system,  they  are  com- 
pelled to  defend  the  infallibility  of  tradition,  as  a  part  of  the 
infallibility-doctrine  of  their  Church  ;  and  this  they  do  with 
characteristic  zeal.  But  who  fails  to  perceive  that  this  must 
involve  their  whole  system  in  a  labyrinth  of  difficulties  % 

However  ingeniously  and  subtly  Roman  Catholic  divines 
may  philosophize  about  the  certainty  of  oral  tradition,  we 
maintain  that  their  arguments  are  singularly  inconclusive. 
There  are  very  few  cases  in  which  oral  tradition  communi- 
cates the  knowledge  of  facts  and  truths  even  with  a  slight 
degree  of  probability.  We  give  little  credence  to  those  parts 
of  the  history  of  nations  which  are  handed  down  to  us  by 
this  channel  of  communication,  and  for  the  most  part  regard 
them  as  legendary  tales  and  romantic  visions.  We  find  it 
difficult  to  acquire  any  accurate  knowledge  of  a  fact  that 
happens  in  our  own  day  and  generation ;  how  utterly 
impossible,  then,  must  it  be  for  us  to  search  through  a  long 
series  of  traditional  lines  and  trace,  with  certainty,  to  their 
beginning  facts  that  happened  many  centuries  ago  %  If  the 
tradition  be  purely  oral,  we  are  absolutely  without  any  guide 
to  direct  our  researches.  How  can  we  possibly  prove  that 
certain  facts  occurred  in  bygone  ages,  without  recourse  to 
written  documents  %     Surely  it  is  not  enough  to  say  that  the 


70  Roman  Catholicism. 

present  generation  believes  them,  having  received  them  by  oral 
tradition.  Moreover  the  difficulty  increases,  when  the  objects 
of  this  oral  communication  are  not  merely  simple  events,  but  a 
whole  system  of  religious  doctrine  transcending  man's  mental 
capacities  and  warring  against  his  natural  inclinations,  and 
a  whole  body  of  liturgical  ordinances  and  disciplinary  observ- 
ances,— the  very  things  which  would  be  most  likely  to  be 
corrupted  in  the  process  of  oral  transmission  from  generation 
to  generation. 

This  uncertainty  of  oral  tradition  has  been  felt  from  the 
very  dawn  of  man's  history.  It  is  but  natural  to  suppose 
that  it  would  be  the  earliest  method  of  transmitting  from 
father  to  son  the  events  of  the  past,  and  in  those  early  ages 
when  the  human  race  was  not  large  and  men  lived  several 
hundred  years,  this  channel  may  have  been  adequate  and 
trustworthy  for  a  considerable  time.  But  experience  soon 
taught  them  that  they  must  have  a  surer  way  of  handing 
down  history  to  future  generations.  For  this  purpose,  they 
invented  hieroglyphics,  commemorative  observances  and, 
finally,  writing.  We  consider  it  a  conclusive  proof  against  oral 
tradition  that  with  the  invention  of  writing  commences  the 
authentic  and  reliable  history  of  man.  It  is  in  the  very  nature 
of  things  that  mere  communications  by  word  of  .mouth  are 
soon  forgotten  or  distorted,  but  that  which  is  written 
remains — litera  scripta  manet.  We  believe  that  writing  is  a 
providential  gift  of  God  bestowed  on  man  to  perpetuate 
safely  His  revealed  truths  to  the  end  of  the  world  ;  nay,  it 
is  a  preliminary  act  in  the  divine  dispensations.  Like 
revelation  itself,  writing  is  an  element  in  God's  plan  of 
educating  mankind ;  whilst  oral  tradition,  instead  of  having 
an  elevating  tendency,  keeps  man  where  he  is,  and  instead 
of  imbuing  his  mind  with  certainty,   would  leave  hiin   a 


The  ChurcUs  Office  as  Witness-hearer,         71 

prej  to  legendary  tales  and  superstitious  beliefs  and  ob- 
servances. 

But  our  Roman  Catholic  brethren  answer  that  the  tradi- 
tion of  Christ's  Church  is  not  merely  oral,  since  it  has  also  been 
written  down.  It  is  oral  in  its  nature,  but  it  has  also  been 
committed  to  writing  as  an  external  means  of  confirming  us 
in  our  adherence  to  the  infallible  voice  of  the  Church.  They 
tell  us  that  it  is  embalmed  in  creeds  and  liturgies,  in  the 
decrees  and  canons  of  general  and  particular  councils,  in  the 
writings  of  the  fathers  and  doctors  of  the  Church. 

If  you  ask  them  whether  all  these  writings  are  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  Church,  they  answer:  No;  but  only  those  por- 
tions which  bear  witness  to  what  was  believed  as  Catholic 
doctrine  in  those  days.  And  if  you  ask  them  again,  how  you 
may  find  out  what  is  testimony  and  what  individual  opinion 
in  these  writings,  they  will  give  you  the  following  rule: 
Quod  semper,  iibique  et  ah  omnibus  creditum  est — what  has 
been  believed  always,  everywhere,  and  by  all,  is  Catholic 
doctrine.  In  other  words :  Read  all  these  writings,  and  that 
in  which  they  all  agree  is  the  semper,  uhique  et  ah  omnihus 
creditum — the  common  faith  of  the  Church  in  all  times  and 
places. 

Let  us  pause  here.  That,  then,  is  oral  tradition.  Why, 
it  is  not  oral  tradition  after  all.  Roman  Catholics  have  to 
come  to  our  way  of  thinking  that  the  Word  of  God  is  given 
to  us  in  written  records.  We  were  told  by  them  that  the 
Scriptures  were  obscure,  insufficient,  and  so  difficult  of  com- 
prehension that  they  could  never  be  an  independent  rule  of 
faith  for  man,  and  we  were  promised  an  easier  way  of  ascer- 
taining divine  truth.  But  what  have  we  here^  A  rule  that, 
on  account  of  its  vastness,  must  overwhelm  any  sincere  en- 
quirer after  truth.  In  order  to  give  an  account  of  the  hope 
that  is  in  him,  and  to  fully  satisfy  his  mind  that  a  doctrine 


?2  Roman  Catholicism. 

is  catliolic  and  contained  within  the  depository  of  faith,  called 
tradition,  he  must  wade  through  a  whole  library  of  fathers 
and  doctors  of  the  Church,  acts  of  councils,  liturgies,  &c., 
and  that  not  in  a  desultory  manner,  but  in  a  critical  spirit, 
comparing  work  with  work,  until  he  finds  the  doctrines  upon 
which  all  are  agreed.  And  if  we  consider  the  great  number 
of  truths  revealed  by  God,  and  if  in  regard  to  each  of  these 
this  process  must  be  repeated,  we  may  well  ask  in  astonish- 
ment, would  it  be  possible  for  man,  if  such  were  the  rule  of 
faith,  ever  to  acquire  an  intelligent  conviction  of  the  dogmas 
proposed  for  his  belief?  Would  it  be  possible  for  any  human 
being  to  undertake  this  huge  task  and  complete  it  successfully'? 

To  this  difficulty  they  reply  that  the  Church  performs  this 
task  for  every  one  of  her  members.  How  so  ?  What  is  this 
Church  but  the  bishops  ?  Are  they  not  individually  fallible 
human  beings  1  And  must  not  this  task  be  undertaken  by 
them  individually  before  they  can  give  a  decision  collectively? 
They  meet  the  difficulty  by  endowing  the  episcopate  as  a  body 
with  infallibility.  But  do  they  not  also  teach  that  this  gift 
of  infallibility  is  Tiot  an  inspiration,  but  only  an  assistance 
of  God's  Spirit,  and  presupposes  faithful  enquiry  into  the 
whole  field  of  tradition,  so  as  to  discover  what  has  always, 
everywhere,  and  by  all,  been  believed?  And  can  they 
expect  that,  if  this  enquiry  be  neglected  or  carelessly  con- 
ducted, the  Spirit's  assistance  will  be  given  them  in  their  col- 
lective decree  ?  Has  it  come  to  this  that  the  members  of  the 
Church  must  resign  themselves  altogether  into  the  hands  of 
the  bishops  who  may  after  all  be  incapable  or  careless  enquirers 
after  truth? 

And  now  since  the  Vatican  council  they  maintain  that 
the  pope  alone  can  infallibly  pronounce  what  doctrines  are  or 
are  not  to  be  found  in  this  depository  of  tradition.     But  if, 


The  ChurcKs  Office  as  Witness-hearer.         73 

according  to  tlieii'  system,  papal  infallibility  is  not  an  inspira- 
tion, but  an  assistance  in  enquiry,  the  pope  is  bound  to  per- 
form the  almost  superhuman  work  of  examining  critically  the 
whole  vast  body  of  tradition,  before  he  is  justified  in  giving 
an  infallible  decree,  ex  cathedra.  Can  he  perform  this  work 
for  himself,  amidst  the  many  cares  of  his  government,  or 
do  others  do  it  for  him  %  If  so,  how  is  h»  certain  that  his 
theologians  have  performed  it  properly  ?  And  is  he  justified 
in  giving  a  decree  without  this  certainty  % 

Here  Roman  Catholics  have  to  solve  aaother  difficulty. 
Do  they  not  prove  the  infallibility  of  their  Church  from  tradi- 
tion %  But  we  have  already  seen  that  they  prove  the  infalli- 
bility of  tradition  by  the  infallibility  of  the  Church,  and  is 
this  not  reasoning  in  a  circle — a  fault  unpardonable  in  logi- 
cians %  They  cannot  say  here,  as  they  said  in  regard  to  the 
Scripture  proof  in  favor  of  infallibility,  that  they  consider 
tradition  under  a  twofold  aspect,  and  thus  avoid  contradic- 
tion; for.  they  teach  that  oral  tradition  and  the  living  voice 
of  the  Church  are  one  and  the  same  thing  j  to  prove,  there- 
fore, the  one  by  the  other  would  be  proving  the  same  thing 
by  the  same. 

Nor  can  they  escape  the  difficulty  by  saying  that  the 
bishops,  as  successors  of  the  Apostles,  have  received  the  deposi- 
tum  of  faith  from  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  to  be  trans- 
mitted by  them  from  generation  to  generation;  and  that, 
holding  this  authoritative  commission,  they  have  no  need  of 
disinterring  the  records  of  past  ages  to  prove  their  infalli- 
bility. But,  then,  to  prove  their  commission,  they  must 
prove  their  uninterrupted  Apostolical  succession,  and  for  the 
proof  of  this  succession  they  go  to  tradition.  Can  they,  at 
the  same  time,  be  allowed  to  give  their  own  evidence  as  to 
the  authority  of  that  tradition  1  This  would  be  describing  a 
circle, — a  gross  sophism. 


74  Roman  Catholicism. 

Now,  why  should  God  make  use  of  such  an  uncertain 
method  of  diffusing  and  preserving  His  precious  revelation? 
Why  should  He  use  an  instrument  so  much  exposed  to  attack 
from  enemies  of  the  truth?  "Why  should  He  ordain,  in  His 
all-wise  providence,  that  some  of  His  revealed  truths  should 
be  written  down,  and  for  this  end  inspire  the  writers,  and 
that  another  part  should  not  be  written  at  all  but  left  to  the 
chances  of  oral  tradition  ?  Why  should  we  admit  this  want  of 
uniformity  in  the  most  momentous  affair  of  life  ?  We  see 
no  reason  for  it ;  nay,  we  have  reasons  for  the  contrary  sup- 
position. 

We  find  that  Christ  more  than  once  inveighed  against  the 
Pharisees  on  account  of  their  traditions  (Matt,  xv.,  3-6; 
Mark  vii.,  9-13).  He  tells  them  that  by  their  traditions 
they  place  burdens  on  men's  shoulders  which  God  did  not 
wish  them  to  place  there.  He  rebukes  them  for  adhering 
more  to  theii'  traditions  than  to  the  Word  of  God.  He 
reproaches  them  for  obscuring  the  Scriptures  by  their  tradi- 
tions. He  never  refers  to  tradition  except  to  condemn  it. 
Is  not  this  a  proof  that  no  part  of  God's  revelation  was  handed 
down  by  tradition?  Christ  tells  us  what  evil  consequences 
had  resulted  from  the  regard  which  was  paid  by  the  Jews  to 
tradition  ;  and  St.  Peter  speaks  of  their  vain  conversation  as 
received  by  tradition,  showing  thereby  that  tradition  handed 
them  down  nothing  from  God.  Besides,  has  not  tradition 
been  the  veil  which  has  hindered  them  from  understanding 
their  own  Scriptures,  and  recognizing  in  Christ  the  promised 
Messiah  ?  But  if  God  did  not  employ  tradition  under  the 
Old  Law  why  should  we  suppose  that,  without  telling  us  of 
the  alteration,  He  employs  it  in  the  New  Dispensation? 
And  if  tradition  has  been  productive  of  so  many  evils  to 
Jews,  why  should  we  believe  that  it  is  of  superior  authority 


The  ChiircHs  Office  as  Witness-hearer,         75 

now,  and  that  it  will  not  be  productive  of  similar  evUsto  Chris- 
tians ?  And  let  ns  ask,  whether  among  the  warnings  of  the 
New  Testament  none  are  to  be  found  against  the  traditions 
of  men?  Is  there  not  this  solemn  warning,  "  Beware  lest  any 
man  spoil  you  through  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after  the 
tradition  of  men"  (Col.  ii.,  8)?  Christ  himself,  in  His 
disputations  with  the  Jews,  never  appealed  to  their  tradi- 
tions, but  invariably  to  the  Scriptures,  giving  us  thereby  to 
understand  that,  as  in  the  Old  Testament  divine  revelation 
was  deposited  in  a  book,  so  it  should  likewise  be  under  the 
New  Dispensation.  He  never  appealed  to  the  authority  of 
the  Sanhedrim,  the  supreme  council  of  the  Jewish  priest- 
hood, but  to  the  Scriptures  as  the  only  rule  of  faith. 

If  we  compare  the  Jewish  system  of  tradition  which  our 
Saviour  so  strongly  condemned  with  that  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  we  find  that  they  are  strictly  analogous.  I  cannot  do 
better  than  give  a  resume  of  this  analogy  extracted  from  the 
learned  and  erudite  work  of  Dr.  Peck, — ^^  Appeal  from  Tra- 
dition to  Scripture  and  Common  Sense  :^^ — 

"  Both  Jews  and  Roman  Catholics  trace  their  traditions 
to  God,  the  former  through  Moses,  the  latter  through  the 
Apostles.  Both  regard  them  as  a  supplement  to  and  com- 
mentary upon  the  written  Law,  transmitted  through  a  regu- 
lar succession  of  divinely  appointed  ministers.  In  both 
systems,  the  traditions  which  had  accumulated  to  an  indefi- 
nite extent  came  finally  to  be  written  down  by  the  doctors. 
Among  the  Jews,  Rabhi  Judah,  called  Hakkadosh,  collected 
what  were  considered  the  genuine  traditions  into  one  book 
called  the  Mishna,  which  forthwith  obtained  great  authority. 
The  oral  traditions  of  the  Christian  Church,  first  reduced  to 
writing  we  are  told  by  the  the  Roman  Catholics,  are  the 
creeds,  the  litui^gies,  the  decrees  ot  councils,  the  Aposwoli- 


V6  Roman  Catholicism, 

cal  canons,  and  Apostolical  constitutions.  But  in  both 
systems  these  oral  traditions  were  considered  inadequate. 
Hence  the  Jews  both  in  Judea  and  Babylonia  made  com- 
ments on  the  Mishna,  and  thus  originated  the  two  Talmuds^ 
that  is,  the  Babylonish  Talmud  and  the  Jerusalem  Talmud, 
and  these  comments  are  called  the  Gemara.  The  writings 
of  Vincentius  Lii^inensis  in  the  fifth  century,  Peter  Lombard 
of  the  twelfth,  and  Thomas  Aquinas  of  the  thirteenth  supply 
the  place  of  the  Jewish  Gemara.  Again,  both  Jews  and 
Christians  have  elevated  their  traditions  above,  and  at  the 
expense  of  the  Written  Word,  and  palmed  the  grossest 
puerilities  and  blasphemies  upon  the  infinitely  wise  and 
holy  God,  on  the  authority  of  tradition.  The  result  of  this 
traditionary  system,  both  among  Jews  and  Homan  Catho- 
lics, has  been  to  restrict  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures,  nay, 
almost  to  proscribe  them." 

We  are  fully  convinced  that  the  Boman  Catholic  system 
of  tradition  has  the  same  character  and  the  same  defects  as 
that  of  the  Jews.  Now,  if  Christ  condemned  the  latter  in 
the  strongest  terms,  why  should  we  not  follow  His  example 
and  reject  the  former  ? 

Let  us  follow  the  system  of  the  true  Jews  approved  by 
Christ  Himself.  Both  Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants 
agree  that  the  Old  Testament  is  the  type  of  the  Christian 
Dispensation;  that  the  New  Law  is  foreshadowed  in  the 
Old  Law.  Now,  under  the  Old  Covenant  the  Written  Word 
of  God  was  the  rule  of  faith ;  it  must  therefore  be  the  same  in 
the  New  Dispensation.  Under  the  Old  Testament  the  San- 
hedrim or  Supreme  Council  of  the  priesthood  was  not  in- 
vested with  infallible  authority ;  under  the  New  Testament, 
therefore,  the  episcopate  is  not  endowed  with  infallibility  in 
teaching.     Under  the  Old  Law  the  revealed  truths  were  first 


The  ChurcJis  Office  as  Witness-hearer,         77 

made  known   and  given  to  the  people  by  word  of  mouth 
through  the  prophets ;  under  the  New  Law  the  same  was 
done  by  the  mouth  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles.      Under  the 
Old  Law  the  Word  of  God  was  afterwards  written  down  by 
the  prophets  in  order  to  serve  after  their  death  as  a  rule  of 
faith  to  the  Jews ;  the  same  was  done  under  the  New  Law 
by  the  Apostles,  in  order  that  the  Christians  might  have  an 
infallible  rule  of  faith.     In  the  Old  Dispensation  not  all  the 
prophets   wrote ;    in  the   New   Dispensation   not    all   the 
Apostles  were  moved  by  the  Spirit  to  write.     In  the  Old 
Testament  not  all  that  was  revealed  to  the  prophets  was 
written  down ;  in  the  New  Testament  all  that  Christ  taught 
and  did  is  not  written  down.     In  the  Old  Dispensation,  that 
which  was  written  down  was  considered  a  sufficient  rule  of 
faith ;  in  the  New  Dispensation,  what  was  written  down  by 
the  Apostles,  together  with  the  books  in  the  Jewish  Canon 
of  Scripture,  was  considered  a  sufficient  rule  of  faith  by  the 
first  Christians  and  by  all  those  who  since  have  followed  in 
their  steps.    Under  the  Old  Law,  the  sacred  writings  show  no 
trace  of  human  art,  are  written  in  the  most  simple  style,  and 
adapted  to  the  capacities  of  all;  the  same  is  the  case  under  the 
New  Law,  where  the  writings  bear  the  same  impress  of  a 
Providential  agency.      Under  the  Old  Dispensation  the  ex- 
pounders of  Scriptures  were  not  considered  infallible  ;  there- 
fore, the  claim  to  infallibility  ought  not  to  be  made  by  the 
episcopate  under  the  Christian  Dispensation. 

But  Roman  Catholics  maintain  that  the  unbroken  succes- 
sion of  prophets  in  the  Old  Law  supplied  the  place  of  infal- 
libility ;  there  being  no  such  succession  in  the  New 
Law,  the  teaching  body  of  the  Church  requii^es  to  be  endowed 
with  infallibility. 

We  deny  the  continual  succession  of  prophets ;  let  Roman 


78  R&man  Catholicism. 

Catholics  establish  it  if  they  can.  Besides,  God  sent 
His  prophets  not  to  give  infallibility  to  antecedent  prophe- 
cies, but  to  prepare  the  people  by  degrees  for  the  coming  of 
the  Messiah.  When  He  had  come,  no  new  prophets  were 
required.  His  way  had  been  prepared  by  the  prophets,  end- 
ing with  John  the  Baptist.  The  fulness  of  time  had  arrived, 
and  revelation  was  completed  by  the  Son  of  God.  His  work 
and  His  words  became  historical  facts  which  were  recorded 
in  a  book  by  the  inspired  Apostles,  and  on  them  and  the 
prophets  the  Church  was  built.  The  Holy  Ghost  supplied 
henceforth  the  place  of  the  succession  of  prophets.  All  that 
was  required  to  the  end  of  the  world  was  that  His  doctrine 
be  accepted  and  established  in  the  hearts  of  men.  The  in- 
fallible Word  of  God,  which  has  an  innate  efficacy,  and  the 
grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost  were  amply  sufficient  for  this  end. 


LECTUEE    V. 

TRADITION  AND  SCRIPTURE— REVIEW  OF  THE  ARGU- 
MENTS DRAWN  FROM  THE  CHURCH'S  OFFICE  AS 
GUARDIAN  AND  KEEPER  OF  THE  BIBLE. 

ROMAN  Catholics,  in  order  to  defend  their  system  of 
tradition  as  a  rule  of  faith,  maintain  that  it  is  clearly 
set  forth  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament.  They  con- 
tend that  it  is  contained  in  the  very  commission  which  Christ 
gave  to  His  Apostles ;  for  He  commanded  them  to  preach,  not 
to  write;  from  which  they  conclude  that  preaching,  not 
vyriting,  was  to  be  the  means  by  which  His  doctrine  was  to 
be  propagated  and  preserved ;  and  if  so,  tradition  or  oral 
communication  was  to  be  the  principal  depository  of  faith, 
and  writing  only  an  appendage. 

We  answer  that  the  oral  teachings  of  the  Apostles  were 
a  rule  of  faith  to  those  who  heard  them,  nor  do  we  deny  that 
if  there  were  sufficient  evidence  of  the  transmission  of  the 
words  or  the  sense  of  their  oral  discourses  through  the 
channel  of  tradition,  such  words  or  the  sense  thereof  would 
be  a  rule  of  faith  to  us  ;  for  our  faith  must  be  based  on  the 
preaching  of  the  Apostles  in  whatever  way  that  preaching 
may  reach  us.  But  we  maintain  that  we  have  no  evidence 
that  it  comes  to  us  through  the  medium  of  tradition  ;  nay, 
we  have  shown  the  contrary.  We  believe  that  the  Bible  is 
the  only  safe  source  from  which  we  can  draw  the  teaching 
of  the  Apostles. 


80  Roman  Catholicism. 

True,  preaching  is  the  ordinary  means  of  diffusing  the 
Gospel;  but  is  it  not  clear  that  the  matter  of  preaching 
must  be  taken  from,  and  based  upon,  some  depository  1  The 
Apostles  preached  as  witnesses  and  heavenly-appointed 
messengers,  with  the  extraordinary  mission  of  planting  the 
Church.  Their  preaching,  therefore,  was  based  upon  the 
immediate  revelation  of  God.  But  the  preaching  of  the 
post- Apostolic  Church  is  founded  upon  that  of  the  Apostles. 
Now,  how  could  it  be  founded  upon  it,  unless  it  be  contained 
in  some  depository  given  by  the  Apostles  themselves  %  And 
if  this  depository  be  the  preaching  of  the  Church  from  gen- 
eration to  generation,  or  in  other  words,  oral  tradition,  how 
can  we  prove  the  orthodoxy  of  our  present  preaching, 
except  by  appealing  to  the  preaching  of  the  preceding  genera- 
tions, which,  besides  being  morally  impossible,  would  also  be 
begging  the  question — proving  the  tradition  by  tradition. 
The  correctness  of  the  preaching  of  those  who  take  the  Bible 
as  the  only  standard  of  faith  can  easily  be  ascertained  by  any 
one  who  reads  the  sacred  book ;  whilst  the  truth  of  the 
preaching  of  those  who  gather  their  doctrine  from  the  vast, 
uncertain  and  obscure  field  of  tradition  cannot  be  satisfactorily 
proved,  even  by  the  learned  divine.  The  evangelical  minister 
cannot  impose  upon  the  people,  while  the  traditionist,  who 
knows  that  his  hearers  must  take  for  granted  what  he 
preaches,  may  easily  impose  upon  their  credulity. 

Roman  Catholic  divines  contend  that  there  are  several 
texts  in  which  the  Apostles  expressly  teach  that  there  are 
doctrines  they  did  not  write  down,  but  which,  as  a  sacred 
deposit,  have  been  handed  down  in  the  Church  by  oral  tradi- 
tion. They  adduce  ii  Tim.  i.,  13  :  "  Hold  fast  the  form  of 
sound  words  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me."  The  Rhemish 
ti-anslators  of  the  New  Testament  say  in  their  note :    "  The 


The  Church's  Office  as  Keeper  of  the  Bible.      81 

Apostles  did  set  down  a  platform  of  faith,  doctrine,  and 
phrase  of  catholic  speech  and  preaching,  and  that  not  so 
much  by  writing,  as  we  here  see,  as  by  word  of  month  :  to 
which  he  referreth  Timothy  over  and  above  in  his  epistle  to 
him.  And  how  precisely  Christian  doctors  ought  to  keep 
the  form  of  words  anciently  appropriated  to  the  mysteries 
and  matters  of  our  religion." 

We  answer  that  this  text  proves  merely  t£at  St.  Paul  had 
given  his  beloved  son  Timothy  a  ^^delineation  of  sound 
words  " — v7toTv'7tco6iv  vyiaivovrcov  XoycDv — which  evi- 
dently is  a  summary  of  the  Gospel-system  ;  and  he  exhorts 
him  to  hold  it  fast.  What  has  that  to  do  with  oral  tradition 
as  a  system  1  Of  course,  the  discourses  of  the  Apostles  were 
to  those  who  heard  them  a  rule  of  faith.  We  say  with 
Irenseus  (Lib.  III.,  cap.  4)  :  "  The  Apostles  preached  the 
Gospel,  and  after,  by  the  will  of  God,  delivered  it  to  us  in 
writing,  to  be  the  foundation  and  pillar  of  our  faith." 

But  they  insist  further  that  St.  Paul  proceeds  to  say  in 
the  following  verse,  "  That  good  thing  (literally,  that  good 
deposit)  which  was  committed  unto  thee  keep,  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  which  dwelleth  in  us."  Now,  this  deposit  must  be 
something  different  from  Scripture,  probably  a  creed. 

We  answer,  that  it  has  to  be  seen  what  this  good  de- 
posit— rrfv  Kokrfv  Ttapanara'^r}  nriy — means;  supposing  it  to 
denote  the  Christian  doctrine,  the  text  only  enjoins  Timothy 
to  keep  it  safe,  and  is  entirely  silent  as  to  its  being  inde- 
pendent of,  and  distinct  from,  the  doctrines  that  are  recorded 
in  Scripture.  But  as  St.  Paul,  in  the  preceding  verse,  has 
spoken  of  the  "  delineation  of  sound  words,^^  it  is  probable 
that  he  is  speaking  here  of  something  else,  probably  of  his 
office  or  gifts.  The  word  itapaKaroc'^rf ky]  here  has  evidently 
the  same  meaning  as  in  verse  12,  where  a  similar  phrase 

6 


82  Roman  Catholicism. 

occurs — rrj^v  itapa'^rf ktjv  fxov  (pvXa^ai — and  where  it 
probably  means  the  gifts  he  had  received. 

They  adduce,  moreover,  the  following  passages  in  support 
of  their  doctrine  :  "  And  keep  the  ordinances  (traditions)  as 
I  delivered  them  unto  you"  (i  Cor.  xi.  2)  and  "Therefore, 
brethren,  stand  fast,  and  hold  the  traditions  which  ye  have 
been  taught  whether  by  word  or  by  our  epistle"  (ii  Thess.  ii. 
15).  From  these  texts  they  conclude  that  the  Word  of  God 
is  twofold,  written  and  unwritten,  and  that  the  Apostle 
teaches  that  both  are  to  be  held  in  equal  veneration ;  that 
the  unwritten  word,  called  tradition,  is  distinct  from  Scrip- 
ture and  handed  down  to  us  by  word  of  mouth. 

We  answer  that  the  Greek  word  Ttapado'di?,  translated 
tradition,  is  of  more  extensive  signification  than  the  word 
tradition,  in  the  Roman  Catholic  sense.  It  means  any  pre- 
cept, instruction  or  ordinance  that  is  delivered  either  in 
writing  or  by  word  of  mouth.  The  Apostle,  therefore,  means 
the  doctrines  or  ordinances  which  he  had  taught  the  Thessa- 
lonians  both  orally  and  in  his  epistle.  Of  course,  both  com- 
munications were  to  be  believed  with  equal  veneration  by 
those  who  received  them  from  the  Apostles.  But  the  words 
do  not  imply  that,  in  succeeding  ages,  whatever  is  reported 
hy  the  Church  as  the  unwritten  word  of  God  should  be 
believed  as  revealed  truth.  We  say  with  Cranmer  :  ''  I  grant 
that  Paul  taught  many  things  by  word  of  mouth,  which  he 
wrote  not  in  his  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians.  But  how  shall 
they  prove  that  the  same  things  be  neither  written  by  him 
in  any  other  of  his  epistles,  or  in  any  other  place  of  the  whole 
Bible  ?  For  what  argument  is  this  1  It  is  not  written  in 
this  place  or  to  those  persons  ;  ergo,  it  is  not  written  in  the 
the  Scripture  at  all.  For  the  shortness  of  one  epistle,  or  of 
one  sermon,  cannot  sufficiently  contain  all  things  necessary 


The  Churches  Office  as  Keeper  of  the  Bible.     83 

for  our  salvation ;  and  therefore  be  there  many  books  of  the 
Scripture,  that  what  is  so  omitted,  or  not  spoken  of  in  one 
place,  or  else  darkly  spoken  of,  might  be  plainly  written  in 
another  place.  And  for  this  cause  St.  Paul  writeth  to  the 
Colossians,  saying,  "  When  this  letter  is  read  with  you,  cause 
it  also  to  be  read  to  the  Laodiceans.  And  read  you  also  the 
epistle  written  from  Laodicea."  (Cranmer,  Confutation  oj 
Unwritten  Verities,  ch.  x.) 

Roman  Catholics  contend  that  the  whole  of  God's  revela- 
tion is  not  contained  in  the  written  Word  of  God ;  there 
must,  therefore,  be  an  unwritten  word — oral  tradition — dis- 
tinct from  Scripture,  to  supply  the  deficiencies  of  the  Bible. 
They  endeavour  to  prove  by  different  texts  that  the  whole 
revelation  is  not  recorded  therein. 

We  answer:  True,  not  all  that  Christ  did  and  taught  is 
written  down,  but  we  strongly  maintain  that  what  is  recorded 
is  sufficient  for  us  j  and  this  the  Bible  plainly  teaches.  Let 
me  adduce  a  few  texts. 

St.  Paul  says,  (ii  Tim.  iii.,  15-17):  "From  a  child  thou  hast 
known  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  are  able  to  make  thee 
wise  unto  salvation  through  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus. 
Ail  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable 
for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in 
rightousness;  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly 
furnished  unto  all  good  works."  What  words  could  more 
clearly  prove  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures  than  these? 
From  a  child  Timothy  had  known  the  Scriptures;  there- 
fore, they  are  adapted  even  to  children.  They  are  able  to 
make  us  wise  unto  salvation;  therefore,  they  are  not  mere 
words  without  meaning.  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspii'a- 
tion;  therefore,  not  a  dead  letter;  for  the  Holy  Spirit 
breathes  in  it.     They  are  profitable  for  all  the  great  pur- 


84  Roman  Catholicism. 

poses  of  our  holy  religion — "  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  re- 
proof, for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness."  And 
does  not  all  this  mean  that  they  are  sufficient  for  our  salva- 
tion and  well-being  here  and  hereafter  ? 

Again,  we  read  (Rom.  xv.,  4):  "Whatsoever  things  were 
written  aforetime  were  written  for  our  learning;  that  we 
through  patience  and  comfort  of  the  Scriptures  might  have 
hope."  Thus  the  Scriptures  give  us  learning,  and  that  learn- 
ing imparts  to  us  the.  comfort  of  hope.  Could  they  effect 
this,  if  they  were  insufficient  % 

They  are  sufficient,  indeed,  for  finding  Christ.  "  Search 
the  Scriptures ;  they  are  they  which  testify  of  Me."  (John 
v.,  39.)  Where  else  do  we  learn  Christ  but  in  the  Scriptures] 
Let  Koman  Catholics  point  out  what  tradition  teaches  about 
Him  %  The  worthlessness  of  tradition  in  regard  to  Christ 
should  alone  be  a  sufficient  reason  to  make  us  look  upon  it 
with  suspicion. 

St.  John  says  :  "  Many  other  signs  truly  did  Jesus  in  the 
presence  of  his  disiples  which  are  not  written  in  this  book ; 
but  these  are  written  that  ye  might  believe  that  J  esus  is  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  and  that  believing  ye  might  have 
life  through  his  name."  Now,  if  one  Gospel  was  sufficient 
for  this  great  end,  how  much  more  the  whole  Bible  1  And  if 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  are  extolled  by  Chiist  Himself 
and  His  Apostles,  as  being  sufficient  to  lead  us  to  Him, 
how  much  more  abundant  will  be  our  profit  if  we  add  to 
them  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament ! 

We  have  sufficient  reason  to  distinguish  two  parts  in  the 
revelation  of  God,  namely,  things  of  a  general  or  catholic 
import,  and  things  of  a  local  and  individual  bearing.  The 
former  are  those  truths  which  are  necessary  to  the  salvation 
and  essential  well-being  of  all  mankind  j  they  give  to  reve-  " 


ill 


The  Church's  Office  as  Keeper  of  the  Bible,     85 

lation  the  claim  to  catholicity.  They  have  been  written 
down.  The  latter  comprise  those  things  which  God  did  in 
regard  to  particular  persons  and  nations.  They  have  not  all 
been  recorded  in  the  Bible  ;  for  as  soon  as  those  nations  and 
individuals  ceased  to  exist,  such  matters  lost  their  impor- 
tance. Only  some  instances  which  serve  us  as  examples  for 
imitation,  or  as  warnings,  have  been  written  down.  In  the 
Old  Testament  many  dispensations  have  been  recorded  which 
are  only  of  individual,  local  or  national  importance ;  for  the 
Old  Law  was  more  or  less  confined  to  the  Jews,  as  the  chosen 
people  of  God;  whilst  the  New  Testament  bears  decidedly  a 
catholic  character. 

But  the  advocates  of  Church  infallibility  ask,  *^  "Who  has 
given  us  the  Bible  but  the  Church  ?  Who  tells  us  that  it  is 
inspired  ?  Who  determines  its  canon  but  the  Church  %  Who 
preserves  it  intact  but  the  Church  1  You  cannot,  therefore, 
believe  the  Scriptures  as  such,  unless  you  believe  first  the  in- 
fallibility of  the  Church. 

Let  us  examine  these  questions.  Who  has  given  us  the 
Word  of  God?  Not  the  Church,  in  the  Eoman  Catholic 
sense  of  the  word.  The  prophets  and  Apostles,  the  founders 
of  the  Church,  gave  it.  In  the  same  manner  as  the  prophets 
of  old  gave  their  inspired  writings  to  the  Jewish  nation,  the 
chosen  people  of  God,  so  the  Apostles,  the  witnesses  and 
messengers  of  Clirist,  who,  in  many  ways,  proved  that  they 
had  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  gave  the  Christian  people  their 
writings  containing  a  record  of  the  wonderful  words  and 
deeds  of  tM3  Son  of  God.  With  the  same  certainty  of  faith 
upon  which  the  Jews  believed  the  Old  Testament  to  be  in- 
spired, we  may  believe  the  New  Testament  to  be  inspired ; 
nay,  with  more  certainty,  inasmuch  as  the  Old  Testament  is 
verified  by  and  realized  in  the  New  Testament,  the  latter  being 


86  Roman  Catholicism. 

tlie  fulfilment  of  the  former.  This  verification  and  fulfilment 
contribute  greatly  to  strengthen  our  faith.  The  Jews  had 
the  Old  Testament  without  an  externally  infallible  Church ; 
we,  therefore,  with  more  reason  and  certainty,  possessing  the 
New  Testament,  may  dispense  with  the  infallible  voice  of  the 
Church. 

The  decree  of  the  episcopate  would  only  be  an  external 
proof  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible.  We  have  many  both 
internal  and  external  proofs  of  the  same  inspiration,  without 
having  recourse  to  the  infallible  authority  of  the  Church. 
Read  the  book  in  a  proper  spirit  and  I  have  no  doubt  you 
will  agi^ee  with, me.  As  the  works  of  creation  bear  within 
themselves  an  objective  evidence,  that  is  a  reflex  of  the 
Creative  mind,  enabling  us,  who  are  created  in  the  image 
and  likeness  of  God's  mind,  to  perceive  their  truth ;  so  also 
the  Bible  of  God  has  an  internal  light  and  evidence,  which, 
coming  in  contact  with  the  unclouded  and  unbiassed  mind  of 
man,  convinces  him  that  here  is  truth  that  can  come  from 
no  other  source  but  the  Infinite  Intellect  of  God.  The  more 
you  study  this  book  in  all  its  relations,  the  clearer  will  its 
truth  shine  upon  your  mind.  It  is  a  book  which  needs  no 
external  proofs  to  assure  us  of  its  divine  origin ;  because  it 
stands  upon  its  own  merits.  If  it  were  not  so,  it  could  not 
be  the  rule  of  faith. 

But  if  you  still  demand  external  arguments,  there  is  no 
necessity  for  resorting  to  the  infallible  authority  of  the 
Church.  To  prove  by  external  arguments,  that  is,  by  argu- 
ments outside  of  the  book,  the  inspiration  of  a  sacred  writer ^ 
it  is  sufficient  to  prove  the  inspiration  of  t\iQ  preacher y  and  that 
his  writings  agree  with  his  preaching.  Granted  that  the 
written  word  agrees  with  the  spoken  word,  to  prove  the  in- 
spiration of  the  latter  is  proving  the  inspiration  of  the  for- 


The  Church's  Office  as  Keeper  of  the  Bible.      87 

mer.  Now,  it  is  an  historical  fact  that  the  prophets  of  old 
proved  before  the  whole  Jewish  nation  that  they  were  messen- 
gers of  God,  and  that  they  spoke  the  words  which  God  put  into 
their  mouth,  for  they  produced  evidence  of  their  divine 
mission  in  miracles  and  prophecy.  It  is  an  historical  fact 
that  what  they  spoke  has  been  verified  both  in  the  history  of 
the  Jewish  and  other  nations,  and  especially  in  the  New  Dis- 
pensation itself.  They  were  therefore  inspired  in  the  words 
they  uttered.  But  the  divine  messengers,  believing  the  re- 
velation they  received  from  God  to  be  of  vast  importance,  not 
only  preached  it,  but  also  affirmed  that  they  were  moved  and 
influenced  by  the  Spirit  of  God  to  write  it  down  for  the  en- 
lightenment and  salvation  of  all  future  generations.  It  is 
an  historical  fact  that  their  writings  agreed  with  their  words, 
for  the  same  persons  who  heard  them  speak  heard  also  their 
writings  read  and  had,  therefore,  the  amplest  opportunity  of 
comparing  the  written  with  the  spoken  wOrd.  They  testi- 
fied by  their  acts  that  they  found  both  in  agreement.  Hence 
it  is  that  with  the  same  veneration  which  prompted  them  to 
hear  and  heed  the  spoken  word,  they  read  or  heard  read  the 
written  word ;  and  as  they  considered  the  first  to  be  God's 
revelation,  so  likewise  were  they  constrained  to  receive  and 
accept  the  other. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  New  Testament.  The  Apos- 
tles proved  themselves  to  be  divine  messengers  not  only  be- 
fore one  nation,  but  before  many  peoples  and  nations.  As 
the  word  which  they  preached  was  divinely  inspired,  so  was 
likewise  the  word  which  they  wrote ;  because  all  Christen- 
dom bore  testimony  that  their  spoken  and  written  words  were 
in  perfect  unison.  Hence  the  great  reverence  with  which 
the  Christians  treated  the  sacred  writings  of  the  Apostles  ; 
hence   also   the   diligence   and   devotion  with  which    they 


88  Roman  Catholicism, 

perused  them  in  their  public  and  private  assemblies.  All  this 
proves  that  they  considered  them  as  their  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  The  tone  of  the  New  Testament  writers  evidently 
shows  that  they  considered  their  writings  to  be  the  comple- 
tion of  the  Old  Testament ;  they  looked  upon  themselves, 
therefore,  as  in  the  same  category  or  position  as  the  Old 
Testament  writers — the  prophets;  that  is,  they  believed 
themselves  to  be  similarly  inspired.  They  held  their  mission 
to  be  that  of  inspired  writers,  and  Grod  proved  to  the  whole 
world  that  they  were  His  witnesses  and  messengers.  That 
the  Scriptures  are  inspired  has,  therefore,  been  admitted  as 
an  historical  fact ;  it  required  no  particular  decree  of  the 
Church  to  establish  them  in  the  minds  and  affections  of 
Christians.  We  have  the  Scriptures  then,  as  such,  from  the 
founders  of  the  Church,  not  from  the  Church,  in  the  Koman 
Catholic  sense  of  the  word,  or  from  a  hierarchy  claiming  in- 
fallibility. Their  inspiration,  therefore,  besides  being  proved 
by  internal  evidence,  is  also  an  historical  fact  supported  by 
the  greatest  authoritative  weight  of  testimony. 

In  order  to  determine  the  canon  or  catalogue  of  the 
Scriptures,  we  need  have  no  recourse  to  an  infallible  decree 
of  the  Church,  but  enquire  again  into  history ;  for  the  ques- 
tion on  the  canon  and  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  are, 
in  a  manner,  identical. 

With  regard  then  to  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
written  by  the  Apostles,  we  conclude  that  they  were  written 
by  inspiration ;  for  the  Apostles  were  inspired.  Their  office 
as  founders  of  the  Church  demanded  this  gift ;  and  the  pro- 
mises of  Christ,  as  well  as  the  many  miraculous  evidences  of 
the  special  presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  proved  that  they 
possessed  it ;  hence  they  repeatedly  laid  claim  to  it  in  their 
writings.     But  if  the  inspiration  of  the  New  Testament  be 


The  Churches  Office  as  Keeper  of  the  Bible.      89 

admitted,  we  must  admit  that  of  the  Old ,  Testament.  Of 
Old  Testament  Scripture  St.  Peter  testifies  that  ''  it  came 
not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of  man,  but  that  holy  men  spake 
as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  (ii  Peter  1,  21). 
Of  Old  Testament  Scripture  generally,  St.  Paul  writes,  "  that 
all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profita- 
ble for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  and  for  instruction 
in  righteousness."  Nay,  Christ  Himself  gives  the  sanction  of 
His  authority  to  Old  Testament  Scripture,  and  its  three 
great  divisions,  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  for 
he  quoted  from  them  all  as  authoritative.  He  de- 
clared that  all  things  must  be  fulfilled  which  were  written 
concerning  Him  in  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  Prophets, 
and  in  the  Psalms ;  and  He  exhorted  the  Jews  to  search 
those  Scriptures  in  which  they  believed  that  they  had  eter- 
nal life,  for  these  were  they  which  testified  of  Him. 

The  whole  body  of  Christians  preserves  the  Scriptures,  and 
God  is  with  His  Church  in  the  preservation  of  His  Word.  In 
this,  partly,  consists  Christ's  presence  with  His  Church,  and 
that  is,  if  we  may  so  call  it,  the  external  infallibility  of  the 
Church.  Wherever  the  Scriptures  are  received,  believed, 
and  carried  out,  there  is  the  Church  of  Christ  ''built  on  the 
foundation  of  the  Apostles  and  prophets,  Christ  Himself 
being  the  chief  corner-stone."  And  they  are  the  foundation 
because  they  have  given  us  the  Bible. 


LECTUEE  YI. 

EXAMINATION  OF  THE  ARGUMENTS  DRAWN  FROM 
THE  OHUBCHS  OFFICE  AS  INTERPRETER  OF  THE 
BIBLE. 

IN  our  review  of  the  proofs  in  favor  of  the  infallibility  of 
the  Church  we  have  arrived  at  those  which  are  taken 
from  the  relation  between  the  Bible  and  the  Church,  and  we 
considered  in  our  last  lectm'e  the  argument  of  Roman  Catho- 
lics, that  the  Church  requires  the  gift  of  infallibility  as  guar- 
dian and  keeper  of  the  Bible.  We  reviewed  their  doctrine  that 
the  Church  has  given  us  the  Bible,  determined  its  canon,  and 
preserved  it  intact  from  corruption  and  mutilation.  They 
think  they  have  another  strong  proof  for  their  infallibility- 
doctrine,  resulting  from  the  same  relation  between  the  Bible 
and  the  Church.  They  contend  that  the  Church,  as  the 
legitimate  interpreter  of  the  Bible,  requires  to  be  endowed 
with  infallibility;  for  how  could  we  have  unreserved  confi- 
dence in  her  interpretations  if  she  were  not  in  possession  of 
that  gift^  As  to  the  necessity  for  such  an  interpreter,  they 
deduce  it  from  the  obscurity  of  the  Bible,  and  this  obscurity 
they  think  must  be  admitted  by  all  candid  readers  of  the 
book.  Who,  they  ask,  has  not  met  with  passagiss  that  he 
could  not  understand  ?  Who  has  not  met  with  texts  that 
are  unintelligible  in  themselves,  and  which  no  parallel  pas- 
sages are  found  to  explain  %     Are  there  not  some  parts  which 


The  Church'' s  Office  as  Interpreter  of  the  Bible.    91 

appear  to  contradict  others?  Are  there  not  unfulfilled  pro- 
phesies difficult  of  interpretation?  Who  can  understand  the 
allegories,  figures,  and  parables  with  which  it  abounds?  Are 
there  not  mysteries  of  such  depth  that  they  require  an  inter- 
preter to  convey  them,  in  some  intelligible  manner,  to  men's 
minds?  They  maintain  that  this  interpreter  can  be  none 
other  than  the  living  voice  of  the  Church,  which  is  commis- 
sioned by  Christ  to  administer  to  the  wants  of  believers, 
teaching  the  people,  and  feeding  the  lambs  and  sheep  with 
pure  doctrine. 

This  argument  may,  at  first  sight,  appear  plausible ;  it  has 
induced  some  to  enter  the  fold  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and 
entrust  themselves  and.  their  intelligence  to  her  guidance  and 
authority.  True,  the  Church  of  Christ  is  commissioned  to 
teach  and  feed  the  flock  with  the  Word  of  God.  But  we 
maintain  that  she  can  perform  that  office  without  the  gift  of 
infallibility.  Certainty  is  all  she  requires,  and  this  she  can 
secure  by  a  proper  measure  of  application  and  care. 

Indeed,  the  difficulties  of  the  Bible  are  greatly  exaggerated 
by  the  advocates  of  Church  infallibility.  We  thiuk  that  the 
greater  part  of  these  obscurities  and  apparent  contradictions 
are  relative,  not  absolute  \  they  have  their  seat  rather  in  man 
than  in  the  Bible  itself.  He  who  reads  little  finds  more 
difficulties  than  he  who  reads  much;  he  who  does  not  read 
with  attention  meets  with  greater  confusion  than  he  who 
reads  attentively ;  he  who  does  not  read  in  a  prayerful  spirit 
finds  contradictions  and  even  absurdities  where  everything 
is  plain  and  evident  to  him  who  is  devout;  the  unlearned 
and  unstable  find  hard  passages  which  are  quite  clear  to  the 
sober-minded  and  steady  reader.  The  fact  is,  men  do  not 
read  the  Bible,  or  they  do  not  read  it  with  the  proper  dispo- 
sition ;  hence  they  find  it  obscure. 


92  Roman  Catholicism. 

Roman  Catholics  exaggerate  the  difficulti(}s  of  the  Bible  in 
order  to  establish  the  authority  of  the  Church.  But,  suppose 
that  we  could  not  understand  the  Bible  without  authoritative 
interpretation  by  the  Church,  would  this  interpretation  be 
intelligible  to  all?  Would  it  present  no  difficulties,  or  would 
it  not  become  difficult  in  course  of  time '?  We  think  that  the 
interpretations  of  the  Church  are  almost  certain  to  be  more 
obscure  than  the  Bible  itself.  But  let  us  consider  more  atten- 
tively this  bulwark  of  infallibility,  based  on  the  pretended 
obscurity  of  the  Bible. 

Roman  Catholics  agree  with  us  that  the  Bible  is  a  rule  of 
faith.  The  question  is :  Is  this  rule  of  faith  sufficiently  clear 
of  itself,  or  does  it  require  explanation  by  a  body  of  meii  who 
claim  to  be  endowed,  from  on  high,  with  the  divine  attribute 
of  infallibility  ?  Are  we  compelled  to  have  recourse  to  the 
Church  in  order  to  understand,  with  sufficient  clearness,  how 
to  be  reconciled  with  God  and  save  our  souls  % 

It  was  not  so  with  the  Old  Testament,  in  which  is  fore- 
shadowed the  Christian  Dispensation.  There  was  no  infal- 
lible Church  to  interpret  the  sacred  books;  for  it  is  well 
known  that  the  supreme  council  of  the  Jewish  priesthood  was 
not  deemed  infallible;  yet  men  acquired  a  sufficiently  clear 
knowledge  of  the  sense  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  by  its  light 
were  enabled  to  walk  with  God.  Can  we  suppose  the  New 
Testament  to  be  less  clear  and  perfect?  Would  God,  in  His 
Word,  reveal  His  truth  more  dimly  to  Christians  than  to 
Jews? 

No;  every  reader  of  the  Bible  must  be  convinced  that  the 
Old  Testament  contains  a  larger  number  of  obscure  passages 
than  the  New;  for  the  books  of  the  former  are,  to  a  large 
extent,  prophetical;  whilst  the  writings  of  the  lattei  are 
mostly  historical,  and  contain  doctrines  founded  on  history 


The  Churches  Office  as  Interpreter  of  the  Bible.   93 

and  on  fulfilled  prophecy.  And  who  does  not  know  that  it  is 
more  difficult  to  interpret  prophecy  than  to  understand  his- 
tory^ Why  then  should  we  Christians  need  an  infallible 
interpreter,  when  the  Jews  were  able  to  do  without  one? 

But  we  possess  still  greater  advantages,  not  bestowed  upon 
the  Jews,  by  which  we  are  enabled  to  acquire  a  sufficiently 
clear  knowledge  of  revealed  truths,  without  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Church.  Roman  Catholics  will  agree  with  us  that 
under  the  Old  Law  the  Holy  Ghost  had  not  been  as  yet 
given,  and  His  peculiar  influence  had  not  then  commenced 
to  pervade  the  Church,  working  in  a  special  manner  with  the 
honest  searcher  after  truth.  The  Jews,  therefore,  were  thrown 
on  the  resources  of  their  natural  light  in  interpreting  the 
Bible.  How  much  more  able,  then,  should  Christians  be  to 
understand  God's  Word,  since  they  have  the  promise  of  the 
Spirit's  assistance  *?  Boman  Catholics,  instead  of  belittling 
God's  written  Word,  and  deterring  men  from  opening  the 
sacred  volume,  on  account  of  its  reputed  obscurity,  should  be 
thankful  for  the  privileges  Christians  enjoy  as  compared  with 
Jews,  and  instead  of  bolstering  up  their  system  of  hierarchi- 
cal infallibility  to  the  disparagement  of  the  Bible,  they  should 
implore  the  aid  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  who  is  ever  willing  and 
ready  to  give  them  a  clear  understanding  of  the  revealed 
truths  of  God  so  far  as  may  be  necessary  for  their  salvation 
and  well-being. 

Indeed,  what  need  is  there  of  an  infallible  interpreter? 
We  are  bound  to  admit  that  the  sacred  writers  did  not  address 
themselves  to  men  of  eccentric  and  distorted  intellect  who 
would  find  or  invent  difficulties  anywhere,  or  to  men  of  a 
vain  philosophy,  against  whom  St.  Paul  warns  Christians, 
but  to  men  of  sound  common  sense  who  will  use  their  judg- 
ment in  a  normal  way.     We  must  suppose  that  God,  in  pro- 


94  Roman  Catholicism, 

viding  a  revelation,  did  not  intend  to  absolve  man  altogether 
from  the  duty  of  enquiring  into  truth,  thus  become  a 
blind  recipient  of  doctrines  proposed  for  his  belief  by  a  body 
of  men  claiming  infallibility.  We  clearly  see  that  men  of 
common  sense — and  they  are  generally  in  the  majority — 
will,  by  the  aid  of  God's  Spirit,  find  it  no  impossible  task  to 
find  in  the  Bible  as  much  saving  truth  as  is  necessary  for 
them.  The  sacred  penmen  wrote  for  these  and  for  these 
alone.  So  long  as  sober  common  sense  exists  in  the  Church, 
the  Bible  will  be  understood  without  recourse  being  had  to 
the  interpretations  of  a  hierarchy. 

Both  the  learned  and  unlearned  possess  this  gift  of  God ; 
the  Bible,  therefore,  suits  the  capacity  of  all  classes  of  men. 
As  true  philosophy  is  nothing  more  than  the  development 
and  science  of  common  sense,  even  the  most  profound  philos- 
opher will  find  in  the  Bible  full  satisfaction  and  repose  for 
his  intellect.  The  most  simple  men,  devoid  of  profound 
human  learning,  such  as  the  sacred  writers  were,  address 
themselves,  in  the  simplest  style  and  the  plainest  terms,  to 
simple-minded  people.  Who  does  not  see  that  God  acted 
thus  that  all  might  understand  His  revelation  with  sufficient 
clearness?  There  is  a  wise  design  in  all  the  works  of  God. 
We  believe  this  simplicity  of  style  and  language  has  its 
meaning,  and  that  God,  in  making  use  of  it,  gave  us  to  under- 
stand that  men  of  common  sense  might  clearly  discern 
the  truths  He  purposed  to  reveal  for  the  enlightenment  and 
welfare  of  mankind.  Nay,  this  very  simplicity  of  language 
is  in  itself  a  gracious  and  encouraging  invitation,  on  God's 
part,  to  hungry  and  thirsting  souls — and  they  only  will 
profit  by  it — to  come  and  read  and  reason  together  with  Him 
and  thus  acquire  possession  of  the  truth,  without  the  inter- 
ference of  any  body  of  men,  however  high  their  ecclesiastical 
authority  may  be. 


The  Church'' s  Office  as  Interpreter  of  the  Bible.    95 

We  ask  any  impartial  man,  not  blinded  by  the  spirit  of 
party,  wby  did  God  inspii'e  His  messengers  and  move  them 
to  write  the  Bible?  Was  it  that  it  should  be  understood  by 
man  or  that  it  should  be  a  sealed  book?  It  would  certainly 
be  inconsistent  with  the  wisdom  of  God  to  bestow  a  book 
upon  man  for  his  guidance,  and  at  the  same  time  to  conceal 
its  meaning.  We  cannot  separate  the  book  from  its  sense. 
If  the  book  was  given  for  man's  instruction  the  sense  must 
be  clear  to  those  who  seek  to  be  instructed  by  it.  From  the 
very  fact,  then,  that  God  has  given  us  the  Bible,  we  conclude 
that  it  is  intelligible  to  the  sincere  enquu-er  after  truth. 

In  fact,  God  could  adopt  no  method  more  simple  and  more 
truly  enlightening  in  order  to  teach  and  perpetuate  His 
revelation  than  to  embody  it  in  an  intelligible  book.  And 
does  not  history  prove  that,  v/herever  the  Bible  is  read  and 
studied  with  befitting  earnestness,  there  true  Christianity 
prevails,  pure  and  intelligent ;  and  that,  wherever  the  system 
of  Church-infallibility  holds  sway,  to  its  full  extent,  there  is 
no  enlightened  and  reasonable  Christianity,  but  only  error 
and  superstition — not  the  reality  of  truth,  but  the  dream  of 
delusion.  But  we  should  expect  quite  the  contrary  if  what 
Roman  Catholics  say  about  the  obscurity  of  the  Bible  be 
true.  Alas !  we  fear  that  the  claim  to  infallibility  is  merely 
a  subterfuge  to  defend  doctrines  that  are  not  to  be  found  in 
Scripture,  or  are  contrary  to  Scriptui^e;  and  that  the  ob- 
scurity is  not  in  the  Bible  itself,  but  in  the  men  who  assert 
the  infallibility  of  the  Church.  In  fact,  this  pretended  power 
of  infallible  interpretation,  instead  of  clearing  away  difficul- 
ties, tends  to  propagate  errors  and  serves  only  as  an  easy 
pillow  for  careless  members  of  the  Church. 

No ;  Christ's  people  do  not  need  such  an  interpreter.  The 
Bible  was  understood  by  its  first  readers,  without  the  inter- 


96  Roman  Catholicism. 

pretation  of  an  infallible  priesthood,  why  should  it  not  be 
understood  by  the  devout  students  who  have  lived  in  succeed- 
ing ages?  Are  they  less  richly  endowed  with  common  sense? 
Are  they  less  dear  to  God's  heai't?  Or,  has  the  understand- 
ing of  the  Scriptures  become  more  difficult?  We  cannot 
allow  any  of  these  suppositions.  True,  our  habits  and  cus- 
toms, the  character  of  our  times  and  countries,  the  idioms  of 
our  languages  and  other  circumstances  differ  from  those  of 
the  sacred  writers  and  of  their  earliest  readers,  and  this  may 
at  first  sight,  present  some  difficulties  in  the  way  of  clearly 
understanding  the  Bible.  But  these  difficulties  are  not  in- 
surmountable and  require  no  infallible  interpreter;  they  can 
all  be  overcome  by  proper  care  and  study. 

We  do  not  deny  that  there  are  difficulties  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture;  there  are  passages  which  have  not  as 
yet  been  fully  understood  and  explained;  but  we  have  no 
need  of  admitting,  on  that  account,  the  claims  of  the  Church 
as  an  infallible  interpreter;  for  she  has  proved  no  wiser  than 
the  rest  of  mankind  in  the  work  of  elucidation. 

The  truths  of  the  Bible  may  be  divided  into  two  great 
classes — simple  historical  narratives  of  fact,  and  doctrine. 
No  one  will  deny  that  the  former  can  be  easily  understood 
by  every  attentive  reader;  we  do  not  mean  the  nature  of  the 
facts,  but  their  historical  statement.  Strictly  speaking,  we  do 
not  understand  the  internal  nature  of  any  fact,  even  in  the 
natural  order.  We  do  not  comprehend  how  a  plant  grows,  but 
we  know  nevertheless  that  it  does  grow.  In  like  manner, 
we  do  not  understand- how  a  miracle  is  wrought,  but  we 
know  that  it  is  wrought.  To  know  the  existence  of  facts  is 
sufficient  for  our  guidance,  both  in  the  natural  and  super- 
natural order. 

With  regard  to  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  Bible,  they 


The  Churcl^s  Office  as  Interpreter  of  the  Bible.    97 

may  be  subdivided  into  two  classes — practical  ones  or  moral 
precepts,  and  dogmatical  ones  or  doctrines  of  faith.  The 
former  may  also  be  readily  understood  by  men  of  sound  prac- 
tical common  sense;  for  it  is  not  difficult  to  understand 
tilings  of  practical  import,  and  the  precepts  of  the  Bible  are 
couched  in  simple  and  intelligible  words. 

As  for  the  theoretical  parts  which  contain  dogmas  of  faith, 
those  doctrines  that  are  necessary  for  our  salvation,  and  form 
the  basis  of  our  Christian  life,  on  which,  as  it  were,  the  whole 
of  Christianity  hinges,  or  in  other  words,  the  essentials  and 
fundamentals  are  also  easily  understood  by  every  sincere  en- 
quirer. They  are  expressed  in  the  clearest  terms,  occur  al- 
most on  every  page  of  Holy  Writ,  are  stated  in  a  variety  of 
ways,  presented  in  different  views  and  aspects,  and  illus- 
trated in  parables  taken  from  the  ordinary  occurrences  of 
life.  Being  the  cardinal  points  of  revelation,  and  as  such  of 
the  highest  importance  and  interest  to  every  man,  the  serious 
enquirer  is  anxious  to  know  about  them,  and  every  one, 
even  the  most  illiterate,  has  common  sense  enough  to  under- 
stand them. 

But  there  are  also  doctrines  in  the  Bible  which  are  not 
fully  understood,  and  the  time  has  not  even  yet  arrived  when 
the  understanding  of  them  seems  to  be  required.  It  is  not 
necessary  that  God's  revelation  should  be  fully  comprehended 
in  its  entirety,  all  at  once,  and  by  every  believer.  As  in  the 
book  of  nature  there  are  phenomena  not  fully  understood,  and 
which  therefore  stimulate  and  excite  a  laudable  spirit  of  ex- 
amination and  research,  so  also  in  the  Bible  there  are  passages 
the  meaning  of  which  will  be  made  known  at  some  future 
time  ;  although  that  is  not  necessary  in  our  day  for  the  sal- 
vation of  the  present  generation.  It  will  be  necessary  at  some 
future  time ;  because  there  is  nothing  useless  in  God's  works, 

7 


98  Roman  Catholicism. 

especially  in  His  supernatural  revelation.  When  tlie  proper 
time  arrives,  God  in  His  all- wise  providence  will  give  the 
key  to  the  true  understanding  of  what  remains  obscure.  Has 
that  Church  which  claims  infallibility  in  interpretation  given 
an  infallible  explanation  of  all  parts  of  Sacred  Scripture  ? 
No ;  she  does  not  even  consider  it  necessary  at  present,  and 
certainly  could  not  do  it ;  or  if  she  could,  as  she  pretends, 
why  does  she  put  her  candle  under  a  bushel,  and  keep  her 
talent  for  expounding  Scripture  infallibly  thus  long  wrapped 
up  in  a  napkin  %  Why  does  she  not  issue  infallible  commen- 
taries or  expositions  of  the  entire  Bible  %  She  cannot  do  it 
and  is  afraid  of  committing  herself.  The  pretended  gift  of 
infallibility  is  only  a  cloak  to  conceal  the  nakedness  of  doc- 
trines not  contained  in  Scripture — a  subterfuge  of  obstinacy 
in  error ;  it  is,  in  fact,  a  weapon  employed  against  the  Bible. 

He  who  is  not  satisfied  with  the  Bible  will  also  be  dis- 
contented, if  he  be  of  a  serious  and  reflecting  cast  of  niind, 
with  the  doctrine  of  Church-infallibility.  Every  sound  mind, 
under  the  guidance  of  God's  Spirit,  may  be  satisfied  with  the 
Bible  and  find  therein  those  things  which  are  necessary  for 
his  salvation,  food  and  satisfaction  for  his  mind,  rest,  peace 
and  consolation  for  his  heart,  moral  strength  for  his  actions. 

It  is  only  the  men  of  system, — they  who  wish  to  see  the 
whole  body  of  revealed  doctrine  systematically  and  scientifi- 
cally arranged  according  to  human  method  that  find  it  diffi- 
cult to  understand  God's  Word  ;  because  they  find  it  a  hard, 
nay,  impossible  task  to  arrange  the  doctrines  scattered  by  God 
over  the  difierent  leaves  of  His  written  Book  under  the 
banner  of  their  preconceived  system.  They  have  some 
favourite  tenet,  some  peculiar  point  of  view,  some  pet  scheme, 
to  which  they  wish  to  make  everything  yield,  to  which  they 
endeavour  to  reduce  all  revealed  truth,  and  by  the  light  of 


The  Church's  Office  as  Interpreter  of  the  Bible.     99 

whicli  they  interpret  every  text.  They  will  certainly  find  it 
a  difficult  task  to  compress  all  the  truths  of  the  Bible  into 
the  narrow  limits  of  a  system  conceived  in  the  brain  of  man. 
They  are  like  those  philosophers  who  wish  to  confine  all 
human  knowledge  within  the  limits  of  one  favourite  principle. 
As  the  disputes  in  philosophy  arise  from  this  spirit  of  sys- 
tematizing^ so  also  in  religion.  The  book  of  nature  and 
the  book  of  supernatural  revelation  are  two  grand  books, 
the  contents  of  which  we  can  never  fully  comprehend,  and 
the  depth  of  which  we  can  never  fully  fathom  in  this  life. 
But  notwithstanding  these  limits  of  our  understanding,  under 
God's  guidance  we  can  gather  from  the  book  of  nature  as 
much  as  is  sufficient  for  our  temporal  life  and  happiness  ;  and 
from  the  Word  of  God  as  much  as  amply  suffices  for  our 
spiritual  life  and  felicity.  We  should  beware  of  any 
tendency  to  systematizing,  but  contrariwise,  endeavour  to  keep 
our  minds  and  hearts  open  to  the  truth  in  all  its  fulness  and 
purity.  The  wise  philosopher  gathers  facts  from  the  book  of 
nature  wherever  he  can  find  them  j  he  is  not  anxious  to  con- 
fine himself  within  the  narrow  limits  of  a  theory,  because  he 
knows  that  every  object  in  nature  may  be  considered  from 
difierent  points  of  view,  and  that  every  aspect  of  it  may 
form  the  basis  of  a  beautiful  set  of  truths.  It  is  the  same 
with  the  impartial  religious  enquirer.  He,  too,  gathers  truth 
from  every  leaf  of  Holy  Writ  j  at  each  reading,  new  and 
beautiful  avenues  open  to  his  mind,  every  one  of  which  con- 
tains a  series  of  bright  and  consoling  truths,  but  he  does  not 
raise  them  into  an  exclusive  system.  It  is  sad  to  reflect  that 
many  of  the  difierent  religious  denominations  have  originated 
from  the  spirit  of  system,  from  a  one-sided  and  narrow  con- 
sideration of  God's  Word.  Having  established  a  'priori,  that 
is,  before  attentively  reading  all  parts  of  God's  revelation  and 


100  Roman  Catholicism. 


comparing  Scripture  with  Scripture,  some  religious  principle, 
they  then  proceed  to  accommodate  the  interpretation  of  the 
Bible  to  it.  We  look  upon  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  as 
the  greatest  of  these  systems.  She  enjoys  superiority  in  point 
of  antiquity,  numbers,  and  external  influence;  she  pretends  to 
interpret  and  solve  all  the  difficulties  of  the  Bible  and  ofiers  to 
her  adherents  the  soft  and  easy  couch  of  Church-infallibility 
whereon  they  may  peacefully  repose  and  lull  their  thoughts 
into  careless  security.  Hence  those  who  are  in  her  bosom 
find  it  difficult  to  get  out,  and  those  who  wish  to  reduce  the 
truths  of  the  Bible  to  a  system  feel  inclined  to  enter  her 
fold.  The  Bible  is  to  them  a  dead  letter ;  some  of  their 
theologians  have  even  gone  so  far  as  to  call  it  a  certain 
amount  of  paper,  ink  and  binding.  Why  %  Because  it  does 
not  set  forth  their  system  \  nay,  they  do  not  see  any  system 
in  it  at  all. 

The  Bible  a  dead  letter  !  No  !  To  call  it  a  certain  amount 
of  paper,  ink  and  binding  is  blasphemy.  The  Bible  is  the 
Word  of  God  and  as  such  it  is  the  life  ;  Christ  says  that  man 
liveth  by  it.  We  should  bear  in  mind  that  there  is  no  dif- 
ference between  the  spoken  and  the  written  Word.  Now, 
the  words  which  God  speaks  are  not  dead  sounds ;  they  are 
living  words,  words  uttered  for  our  eternal  salvation, — words 
of  everlasting  life.  The  Word  of  God,  whether  written  or 
spoken,  has  innate  and  inherent  power.  We  believe  that 
when  it  enters  the  souls  of  men,  God  enters  into  them ;  for 
where  the  Word  of  God  is  there  is  God  also ;  the  Holy  Spirit 
takes  up  His  abode  there  and  surrounds  the  Word  of  God  and 
the  intellect  of  man  with  a  supernatural  light  which  pr 
duces  faith.  As  natural  objects,  because  they  are  created? 
after  their  likeness  in  God's  intellect,  present  internal  evi 
dence  of  their  origin  when  they  appear  to  our  intellect  which 


id 

i 

i-  I 


The  Church! s  Office  as  Interpreter  of  tlie  Bible.    101 

is  enabled  to  perceive  them,  because  it  also  participates  in  the 
light  of  God's  Mind  after  whose  likeness  it  was  created  ;  so  in 
like  manner  and  in  a  far  greater  measure,  the  greatest  work 
of  God — His  holy  Word — bears  in  itself  an  internal  light  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  prepares  our  minds  to  apprehend  it. 

But  although  such  be  the  case,  we  are  nevertheless  bound 
to  use  all  our  endeavours  to  acquire  a  true  interpretation  of 
the  Bible.  None  should  stand  alone  in  this  important  work. 
Individual  efforts,  under  the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
will  certainly  be  blessed;  but  they  will  not  be  complete. 
God  has  given  His  Word  to  men — thinking,  enquiring  and 
patient  men,  and  he  has  promised  to  the  honest  seeker  the 
assistance  of  His  Spirit.  Is  it  not  evident  that  all  this  ex- 
cludes the  fiction  of  Church-infallibility  in  Biblical  interpre- 
tation li 


LECTUEE   VII. 

EEVIEW    OF    THE    ARGUMENTS    DRAWN    FROM    THE 
CHURGHS  OFFIGE  AS  JUDGE  OF  GONTROVERSIES. 

AS  we  have  already  seen,  Eoman  Catholics  contend  that 
the  gift  of  infallibility  is  a  necessity  arising  from  the  dif- 
ferent of&ces  of  the  Church.  We  have  reviewed,  in  the  preced- 
ing lectures,  the  arguments  drawn  from  her  offices  of  witness, 
teacher,  and  shepherd.  It  now  remains  for  us  to  consider  the 
proofs  derived  from  her  office  as  judge  in  controversies  q/ 
faith. 

Both  from  the  nature  of  the  Church  as  a  society  and  from 
Scripture  they  conclude  that  the  Church  holds  the  office  of 
judge.  As  a  society  she  must  possess  a  tribunal  capable  of 
settling  disputes  among  her  members,  and  as  regards  Scrip- 
ture proofs  they  contend  that  the  power  of  binding  and 
loosing  conferred  on  the  Apostles  and  their  successors  in- 
cludes authority  to  decide  in  controversies  of  faith.  And  as 
her  judgment  in  matters  of  faith  and  morals  is  final  here  on 
earth,  and  demands  therefore  the  implicit  confidence  of  all 
her  members,  she  must  necessarily  be  endowed  with  infalli- 
bility;  otherwise  men's  minds  would  remain  unsettled;  faith 
would  lose  its  hold;  and  the  gates  of  hell  ."would  prevail 
against  the  Church. 

We  answer  that  no  such  office  of  judging  infallibly  in  all 
doctrinal  disputes  is  explicitly  set  forth  in  Scripture,  and  we 
do  not  see  how  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  include  it. 


The  Church! s  Office  in  Controversies.  103 

There  is  in  it  nothing  more  than  the  necessary  authority  which 
the  Church  received  from  Christ  to  govern  herself  and  to 
settle  all  matters  of  discipline.  Beyond  this,  we  fail  to 
see  anything  tangible.  Christ  Himself,  who  knew  both 
what  was  in  man,  as  also  the  powers  He  conferred  on  His 
Church,  simply  warned  His  disciples  against  false  prophets 
coming  in  sheep's  clothing,  but  who  inwardly  were  ravening 
wolves.  And  St.  Paul  says,  "  There  must  be  heresies  among 
you,  that  they  which  are  approved  may  be  made  manifest 
among  you."  (i.  Cor.,  xi.  19.)  And  the  other  Apostles 
speak  in  a  similar  strain.  In  all  these  warnings  they  nowhere 
point  to  an  infallible  tribunal  by  which  these  heresies  may 
be  rebuked  and  crushed.  But  they  rather  appeal  to  the 
judgment  of  the  individual.  Christ  saith,  "  Why  of  your- 
selves judge  ye  not  what  is  right  1"  (Luke  xii.,  57.)  St. 
Paul  says,  "  He  that  is  spiritual  judgeth  all  things."  (i.  Cor. 
ii.,  15.)  "  Examine  yourselves  whether  ye  be  in  the  faith." 
(ii.  Cor.  xiii.,  5.)  "  Prove  all  things  \  hold  fast  that  which 
is  good."  (i.  Thes.  v.,  21.)  "  Believe  not  every  spirit,  but 
try  the  spii^its  whether  they  be  of  God."  (i.  John  iv.,  11.) 
Indeed,  no  religious  controversy  can  be  said  to  be  settled 
until  the  respective  parties  are  individually  convinced  in  their 
own  minds.  The  Church  might  issue  her  decrees ;  but  they 
would  have  no  effect  unless  this  individual  conviction  were 
first  brought  about.  It  seems  clear,  then,  that  individual  dis- 
cernment of  the  truth  is  the  only  means  by  which  the  mind 
can  be  persuaded,  and  controversies  of  faith  finally  settled. 
The  Church  is  the  kingdom  of  Christ — the  kingdom  of  the 
truth,  and  every  one  "  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  His  voice," 
and  belongs  to  that  kingdom.  (John  xviii.,  37.)  Where  the 
truth  is,  there  is  the  Church.  Now  we  cannot  find  any  other 
depository  of  the  truth  within  the  Church  but  the  Bible.    In 


i04  Roman  Catholicism. 

all  controversies  of  faith,  therefore,  all  that  the  Church  can 
do  is  to  dii^ect  the  parties  concerned  to  this  standard,  and 
those  that  "  are  of  the  truth"  and  have  their  minds  open  to 
conviction  will  perceive  it,  and  for  them  the  controversy 
is  settled;  and  as  to  those  who  fail  or  refuse  to  be  convinced, 
we  have  to  lament  and  regret  with  St.  Paul,  "  that  there 
must  be  heresies,  that  they  which  are  approved  may  be  made 
manifest." 

The  advocates  of  Church-infallibility,  in  order  to  uphold 
their  views  and  maintain  their  standpoint,  exaggerate  these 
doctrinal  difficulties  and  controversies  of  faith.  By  so  doing 
they  hope  to  set  forth  more  forcibly  the  necessity  of  an  infal- 
lible judge,  and  compel  men  distracted  by  doubts  and  diffi- 
culties to  come  within  the  precincts  of  the  tribunal  they  have 
constituted. 

Let  us  briefly  consider  the  nature  of  these  controversies  in 
order  to  estimate  their  value  and  the  power  of  their  real  and 
supposed  mischief.     We  may  divide  them  into  three  classes. 

In  the  first  place,  there  have  always  been  difierences  of 
opinion  in  regard  to  disciplinary  points.  We  must  infer 
that  Christ  and  His  Apostles  left  the  discipline  of  the  Church 
more  or  less  to  the  free  organization  of  the  Christian  people, 
since  nowhere  in  the  New  Testament  do  we  find  a  code  of  dis- 
ciplinary rules  such  as  was  contained  in  the  Old  Law.  Cer- 
tain general  prmciples  are  laid  down,  but  their  application  is 
left  to  the  free  agency  of  Christian  communities.  If  we 
appeal  to  history  we  find  that  even  in  apostolic  times  such 
difierences  were  permitted  among  the  various  nationalities. 
The  Oriental  liturgies  which  were  certainly  composed  at  an 
early  period,  prove  the  truth  of  this  fact.  Liberty  as  to 
disciplinary  arrangements  is  one  of  the  Christian  privi- 
leges of  which  the  Apostles  speak  when  they  rejoice  that 


The  ChurclCs  Office  in  Controversies.  105 

they  are  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  the  Old  Law.  And  we 
think  that  differences  in  discipline  are  in  a  manner  necessary 
in  order  that  members,  according  to  their  different  disposi- 
tions, may  find  a  place  in  the  Church  in  which  they  may  feel 
themselves  spiritually  free  to  display  fully  their  activity  and 
energy.  Roman  Catholics  will  admit  that  the  settlement 
of  controversies  as  regards  discipline  does  not  require  an 
infallible  judge.  It  is  only  requisite  to  follow  the  principle 
laid  down  by  St.  Paul,  "  to  do  everything  decently  and  in 
order." 

We  regret,  indeed,  that  disciplinary  differences  should 
have  been  allowed  to  destroy  friendly  intercourse  and 
Christian  intercommunion  between  reformed  Churches.  As 
they  are  for  the  most  part  agreed  on  points  of  faith,  why 
should  controversies  about  discipline  divide  them  1  Why 
allow  Christian  liberty  to  destroy  the  bond  of  union  ?  Could 
not  both  exist  together  ?  But  these  which  are  our  misfor- 
tunes, should  not  delude  Roman  Catholics  into  thinking 
that  they  are  right.  They  also  have  their  controversies 
about  discipline,  and  find  it  difficult,  sometimes  impracticable, 
to  settle  them.  Those  among  them  who  know  their  Church 
thoroughly  will  confess  that  the  pope  finds  it  an  exceedingly 
trying  task,  owing  to  mere  disciplinary  differences,  to  retain 
the  different  Eastern  Churches  that  have  re-united  them- 
selves to  the  See  of  Rome ;  and  we  know  of  instances  where 
a  complete  disruption  has  taken  place.  Those  who  are 
behind  the  scenes  are  aware  of  the  constant  temporizing 
forced  upon  the  Roman  curia  in  order  to  allay  disputes  on 
disciplinary  points. 

The  second  class  of  controversies  in  the  Christian 
Churches  regards  doctrinal  points  that  may  be  held  either 
one  way  or  the  other,  without  injury  to  faith  and  charity. 


106  Roman  Catholicism. 

There  is  often  more  than  one  interpretation  admissible  of 
one  and  the  same  text  or  doctrine  j  and  whatever  interpre- 
tation may  be  adopted,  it  will  tend  to  one  and  the  same  end. 
As  long  as  the  facts  of  revelation  are  admitted,  men  may- 
differ  in  the  manner  of  explaining  them.  These  differences 
arise  mostly  from  the  different  points  of  view  from  which 
God's  revealed  truths  are  considered.  Truth  is  not  one-sided, 
but  may  be  considered  in  different  ways.  It  sheds  its  light 
not  only  in  one  direction,  but  all  around ;  from  whatever  side 
you  view  it,  it  remains  always  instrincally  and  essentially 
the  same,  but  assumes  different  aspects  in  its  manifestation 
to  us.  As  the  crystal  exposed  to  the  rays  of  the  sun  remains 
in  itself  the  same,  yet  presents  to  our  view  different  colours 
as  we  look  at  it  in  different  aspects,  so  God's  revealed 
truths  may  be  viewed,  by  different  persons,  from  different 
points  ',  and  although  their  judgments  differ,  we  cannot  say 
that  any  of  them  are  wrong.  We  think  that  probably  all  are 
right,  and  that  if  their  views  were  united  and  reconciled,  we 
should  be  in  possession  of  the  entire  truth.  Every  one  will 
admit  that  controversies  of  this  nature  do  not  require  an  in- 
fallible judge  to  determine  them.  Our  rule  here  should  be 
scrupulously  to  avoid  condemning  any  one  too  rashly  who 
may  differ  from  us  in  his  views  of  revealed  truth. 

To  be  permitted  to  regard  doctrines  from  different  stand- 
points is  what  we  call  liberty  of  conscience.  It  is  not,  as 
Roman  Catholics  object  against  us,  a  license  to  believe 
whatsoever  you  wish,  but  the  right  use  of  our  reasoning 
powers  in  viewing  the  same  text,  doctrine,  or  fact  from  every 
point  of  view.  We  believe  that  God,  by  His  revelation, 
did  not  intend  to  destroy  our  natural  powers,  or  to  fetter 
their  use,  but  to  elevate  them  to  a  higher  and  nobler 
standard.     He  must  have  granted  us,  therefore,   liberty  of 


TJte  ChurcKs  Office  in  Controversies.  107 

conscience.  It  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  by- 
using  this  liberty,  in  a  right  way,  revealed  truths  will  be  dis- 
torted or  destroyed  j  on  the  contrary,  they  are,  by  the  use  of 
this  gift,  more  firmly  established  in  the  hearts  of  men,  not 
only  in  one,  but  in  manifold  aspects.  Although,  in  its 
general  and  main  features,  the  nature  of  the  human  intel- 
lect is  the  same  in  all  men,  still  we  must  admit  individual 
differences ;  and  God,  in  His  government  of  mankind,  em- 
ploys these  individual  characteristics  when  He  descends  with 
His  truth  into  the  human  mind.  As  regards  the  perception 
of  revealed  truths,  we  should  consider  man  not  merely  in  the 
abstract,  but  as  he  really  is,  a  thinking  and  inquisitive  being, 
searching  after  the  truth  in  his  own  way.  ^Y^e  believe  that  God, 
as  a  rule,  manifests  His  truth  only  to  the  sincere  enquirer  \ 
and  this  enquiry  includes  calm  discussion  or  controversy. 
This  stirs  the  stagnant  pools,  purifies  the  spiritual  at- 
mosphere, and  keeps  the  soul  of  man  in  a  healthful  condition. 
There  is,  indeed,  a  third  class  of  controversies  involving 
such  doubts  as  attack  and  tend  to  destroy  the  precious  gift 
and  deposit  of  faith.  How  are  they  to  be  settled  %  We 
answer,  in  the  first  place,  that  such  controversies  are  trials  of 
our  faith.  God,  in  His  inscrutable  providence,  permits  them, 
in  order  to  try  His  people.  But  how  are  they  to  be  made 
aware  of  the  danger?  How  may  they  determine  who  is 
right  and  who  is  wrong  %  Who  has  the  right  and  authority  to 
determine  these  controversies,  and  how  may  they  be  effectually 
settled  %  We  reply  that  the  danger  will  be  perceived  and  the 
enemy  be  detected  and  unmasked  by  those  who  "  are  of  the 
truth  "  and  possess  God's  Spirit.  Those,  on  the  contrary,  who 
care  not  for  the  truth  and  do  not  possess  His  blessed  Spirit,  will 
surely  be  ensnared  and  fall.  Outwardly,  the  enemy  will 
sometimes  appear  to  have  conquered,  so  much  so  that  even 


108  Roman  Catholicism, 

the  elect  will  be  sorely  tried  and  tempted.      Christ  Himself 
has  foretold  this  and  warned  us  of  the  danger. 

History  teaches  that,  when  the  trial  is  great,  God  has  raised 
up  champions  of  Heaven  to  fan  the  dormant  embers  of 
faith,  to  light  the  torch  of  truth,  and  to  kindle  the  fire  of 
divine  love  in  the  hearts  of  men.  When  the  people  of  Israel 
were  in  danger  of  falling  into  idolatry,  God  sent  inspired  pro- 
phets to  keep  them  steadfast  in  the  worship  of  the  true  God, 
and  in  the  hope  of  a  coming  Redeemer.  They  were  inspired, 
for  they  had  to  arouse  the  belief  in  a  future  fact.  The 
champions  of  Christianity  have  no  need  of  this  gift,  as  they 
have  to  speak  oi  the  past,  and  recall  the  minds  of  men  to  a  be- 
lief in  great  historical  facts  which  stand  forth  for  the  inspection 
of  all,  in  their  full  significance  and  value — the  facts  recorded 
in  the  Bible,  which  is  acknowledged  by  all  Christendom  to  be 
the  inspired  Volume  of  God.  So  long  as  the  world  stands, 
that  divine  book  will  be  an  effective  rule  of  faith;  and 
whenever  enemies  arise  against  God's  truth,  they  may  and 
will  be  refuted  by  that  authoritative  volume.  Should  they 
attack  the  Bible  itself,  they  will  never  prevail,  for  "  heaven 
and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  God's  Word  shall  not  pass 
away."  All  that  the  champions  of  Christianity  whom  God. 
raises  up  in  times  of  trial  require  to  do  is  to  turn  the  minds  of 
Christians  from  the  the  delusive  teachings  of  the  enemy  to 
the  bright  facts  of  God's  revelation  contained  in  the  Bible, 
and  the  facts  themselves,  by  their  innate  light,  will  bring 
conviction  and  peace  to  men  that  "  are  of  the  truth  "  and 
have  their  minds  open  to  conviction. 

When  vain  philosophers  endeavour  to  disturb  the  world 
by  their  false  principles  and  teachings  in  natural  and  social 
science,  who  is  to  be  the  judge  of  controversy  between  them 
and  mankind  ?    None  other  than  sound  common  sense,  under 


The  Churches  Office  in  Controversies.  109 

the  direction  of  an  all- wise  Providence.  In  the  same  manner, 
when  bad  and  deluded  men,  instigated  by  Satan,  teach  false 
and  heretical  doctrines,  all  disputes  in  matters  of  faith 
are  settled  by  the  sound  religious  common  sense  of  Chris- 
tians, the  faith  implanted  in  their  hearts,  and  the  guidance 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  attracting  the  well-disposed  and  inducing 
them  to  lean  on  the  Bible  and  behold  therein  the  true  teach- 
ings of  God. 

If  controversies  arise  about  the  meaning  of  the  Bible,  they 
may  also  arise,  as  they  have  often  done  before,  concerning  the 
definitions  and  decrees  of  the  Church.  In  fact  fewer  contro- 
versies have  occurred  about  the  sense  of  the  Bible  than  in  re- 
gard to  the  definitions  of  the  Roman  Church.  It  is  her 
policy,  so  as  not  to  commit  herself,  to  couch  them  in  the 
most  general  terms.  Hence,  in  order  to  understand  them 
and  settle  the  disputes  springing  out  of  them,  another  infal- 
lible judge  of  controversies  would  have  to  be  appointed,  and 
so  on  usquQ  adj  infinitum. 

Roman  Catholics  reply  that  such  would  be  the  case  if  these 
definitions  were  only  a  dead  letter  like  the  Bible.  They  tell 
us  that  they  are  explained  by  the  living  voice  of  the  Church, 
and  can  therefore  be  easily  understood  by  all. 

We  ask,  how  does  this  living  voice  of  the  Church,  that  is, 
of  the  united  episcopate,  reach  the  individual  members?  Is 
it  not  by  the  voice  of  pastors  who  themselves,  in  their  indi- 
vidual capacity,  are  fallible  %  From  the  mouths  of  fallible 
men,  therefore,  they  must  obtain  the  infallible  interpretation 
of  the  decrees  of  the  Church.  We,  on  the  contrary,  maintain 
that  by  sound  common  sense,  with  the  assistance  of  God's 
Spirit,  we  obtain  the  true  meaning  of  the  Bible  so  far  as 
is  necessary  for  our  salvation.  And  the  Bible  was  given  us 
as  a  guide  to  Heaven,  and  for  that  purpose  alone.    Our  posi- 


110  Roman  Catholicism. 

tion  is  simple  and  the  only  one  that  is  tenable,  whilst  that  of 
Roman  Catholics  is  full  of  insurmountable  difficulties. 

They  admit  that  the  pastors  by  whom  the  people  are 
instructed  are  individually  fallible,  but  they  contend  that 
they  are  infallible  when  their  explanation  agrees  with  that  of 
the  united  episcopate. 

We  do  not  see  how  that  can  make  them  infallible.  The 
most  that  can  be  said  is  that  they  teach  the  truth  when 
that  which  the  episcopal  body  teaches  i§  true.  But  there 
is  a  great  difference  between  being  infallible  and  teaching 
the  truth.  The  former  term  is  more  comprehensive  than  the 
latter,  and  demands  that  the  pastors,  besides  teaching  the 
truth,  should  be  so  utterly  incapable  of  error,  that,  when 
they  speak,  the  hearers,  without  enquiring  into  the  proofs  of 
the  doctrines  set  forth  by  them,  must  believe  what  they  teach 
to  be  true,  because  they  teach  it. 

Moreover,  how  can  they  discover  whether  the  pastor  teaches 
the  doctrines  of  the  Church,  unless  they  compare  his  teach- 
ings with  the  definitions  and  decrees  of  the  Church,  or  with 
the  living  voice  of  the  dispersed  episcopate — ^the  ecclesia  dis- 
persa  1  In  the  former  case,  they  would  fall  into  what  they 
call  the  great  Protestant  error,  of  making  the  dead  letter  the 
judge  of  controversies ;  and  in  the  latter  case,  they  would 
have  to  enquire  what  the  bishops  all  over  the  world  teach 
concerning  the  point  in  controversy,  which,  besides  being 
practically  impossible,  could  not  produce  in  their  minds  an 
in  controvertible  faith.  After  all,  then,  the  living  voice  of 
the  Church,  in  matters  of  controversy,  is  but  an  empty  sound 
— vox  et  prceterea  nihil. 

"  The  Scripture  is  the  rule,  the  only  rule  for  Christians 
whereby  to  judge  controversies.  Every  man  is  to  judge  for 
himself  with  the  judgment  of  discretion,  and  to  choose  either 


The  ChurcHs  Office  in  Controversies.  Ill 

his  religion  first,  and  then  his  Church,  as  we  say ;  or,  as 
Boman  Catholics  say,  his  Church  first  and  then  his  religion. 
But  by  the  consent  of  both  sides,  every  man  is  to  judge  and 
choose  j  and  the  rule  whereby  he  is  to  guide  his  choice,  if  he 
be  not  as  yet  a  Christian,  but  a  natural  man,  is  reason  ;  if  he 
be  already  a  Christian,  Scripture  ;  which  we  say  is  the  rule 
to  judge  controversies  by,  which  may  arise  among  Christians 
who  admit  Scripture  to  be  the  Word  of  God.  But  that 
there  is  any  man  or  any  company  of  men  appointed  to  be 
judge  for  all  men,  that  we  deny  ;  and  that  we  believe  Boman 
Catholics  can  never  prove.  The  Bible  has  the  properties  of 
a  rule  j  it  is  fit  to  direct  any  one  that  will  make  the  best  use 
of  it,  to  that  end  for  which  it  was  ordained  :  and  that  is  as 
much  as  we  need  desire.  For,  as  if  I  were  to  go  on  a  jour- 
ney and  had  a  guide  who  could  not  err,  I  needed  not  to  know 
my  way  j  so,  on  the  other  side,  if  I  know  my  way,  or  have 
a  plain  rule  to  know  it  by,  I  shall  need  no  guide.  The 
Scripture  in  things  necessary  is  plain  and  perfect ;  and  men 
are  obliged,  under  paiQ  of  damnation,  to  seek  the  true  sense 
of  it  and  not  to  wrest  it  to  their  preconceived  fancies.  Such 
a  rule,  therefore,  to  sincere  and  serious  men  cannot  but  be 
very  fit  to  end  all  controversies  that  are  necessary  to  be 
ended.  For  others  that  are  not  so,  they  will  end  when  the 
world  ends,  and  that  is  time  enough."     (Chillingworth.) 

When  we  speak  of  Scripture  as  the  judge  of  controversies? 
we  must  not  separate  from  it  the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  Bible  is  His  work  from  begianing  to  end.  He  inspired 
and  dictated  it  for  the  express  purpose  that  men  might  come 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  Do  not  think  that  His  en- 
lightening work  was  at  an  end  after  He  had  dictated  the  last 
sentence  of  the  Bible,  for  He  must  yet  secure  the  end  and  pur- 
pose for  which  He  gave  us  the  inspired  book.     We  believe. 


112  Roman  Catholicism. 

therefore,  that  He  gives  men  the  desire  and  will  to  enquire 
and  seek  after  truth  in  its  pages;  that  He  assists  the  sincere  en- 
quirer with  His  enlightening  grace;  and  finally  leads  him  into 
all  truth.  Although,  sometimes,  the  religious  horizon  may- 
appear  darkened  by  the  clouds  of  fierce  controversy,  the  Holy 
Ghost,  in  His  own  good  time,  will  dispel  them  all,  and  eternal 
truth  will  again  shine  out  in  all  its  brightness. 

By  divine  right,  then,  heresies  are  condemned  in  God's 
Word.  The  infallible  tribunal  composed  of  a  company  of 
men  could  not  more  effectually  settle  controversies  of  faith ; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  would  afford  an  opening  for  establish- 
ing, in  place  of  Christ's  kingdom,  a  kingdom  of  this  world. 
It  would  offer  a  pretext  for  settling  disputes  not  by  mere  de- 
finitions only,  but  by  inquisitions  and  bloody  persecutions, 
as  the  history  of  the  Roman  Catholic  and  other  corrupt 
Christian  bodies  clearly  shows.  The  claimants  to  infalli- 
bility were  not  content  with  anathemas,  but  clamoured  for 
the  extirpation  of  the  heretics;  and  it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that 
no  Church  ever  claimed  infallibility  until  she  had  obtained 
political  power  and  influence  to  persecute  and  destroy  the 
heretic. 

We  are  certain  that  God's  Word  and  His  Spirit  are  de 
jure  the  j udge  of  controversies.  We  are  equally  certain  that  de 
facto  heresies  will  always  exist,  for  Christ  Himself  foretold 
it.  There  exists  no  tribunal  which  can  de  facto — effectually 
— settle  controversies  of  faith,  that  is,  silence  heretics  and 
sweep  heresies  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  The  Church  of 
Kome  has  tried  it ;  but  she  has  never  succeeded.  The  complete 
and  final  destruction  of  error  must  be  left  to  God  alone. 
Those  who  ''  are  of  the  truth,"  will  hear  Christ's  voice  and 
belong   to  His  kingdom  of  truth ;  those  who  are  not  of  the 


The  Church's  Office  in  Controversies.  113 

truth  will  persist  in  their  error.  There  will  be  tares  among 
the  wheat,  and  Christ  alone  can  effectually  separate  the  one 
from  the  other  and  present  to  His  Father  a  glorious  Church, 
without  wrinkle  or  spot, 


8 


LECTUEE    VIII. 

INFALLIBILITY  NOT  NECESSARY  FOR  THE    UNITY  OF 
THE  CHURCH. 

THE  rule  of  faith  ought  to  be  the  focus  on  which  all  the 
light  of  the  Church  concentrates,  the  source  from  which 
all  her  perfections  emanate,  the  principle  that  gives  vitality 
to  all  her  offices,  and  the  bond  of  union  that  unites  her  mem- 
bers in  faith  and  charity.  We  shall  consider  to-day  the 
latter  of  these  properties. 

Roman  Catholics  points  with  the  finger  of  scorn  at  the 
disunited  and  distracted  state  of  Protestantism.  Behold, 
they  exultingly  exclaim,  to  what  interminable  divisions  the 
Bible,  interpreted  by  the  light  of  private  judgment  alone, 
has  led  !  They  glory  in  the  aspect  of  compact  unity  which 
their  Church  presents  to  the  world ;  and  although  they  may 
have  their  doubts  and  misgivings  on  many  points,  yet  they 
see  nothing  outside  her  pale  which,  in  their  sense,  can  be 
called  unity,  and  therefore  make  up  their  minds  to  live  and 
die  Roman  Catholics.  They  are,  moreover,  confirmed  in 
their  adherence,  when  they  see  weary  and  dissatisfied  mem- 
bers of  Protestant  Churches  seeking  refuge  from  distraction 
in  Roman  Catholic  unity.  Now,  as  this  unity  is  brought 
about  by  the  doctrine  of  Church-infallibility,  they  conclude 
that  she  must  be  endowed  with  this  gift  from  on  high. 

We,  too,  teach  that  the  Church  of  Christ  must  possess 
unity,  and  that  this  unity  is  not  a  mere  union  or  voluntary 


Infallibility  and  Church-Unity.  115 

association  which  may  be  entered  into  or  abandoned  at  one's 
will  and  pleasure,  but,  like  the  unity  of  the  human  body, 
results  from  the  very  organization  of  the  Church  as  the 
mystical  body  of  Christ.  It  is  the  organic  unity  of  a  society, 
which^does  not  depend  on  the  will  of  man,  but  is  established 
by  Christ  Himself  and  compacted  together  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
It  is  not  anything  added  from  without,  but  it  is  the  result  of 
the  inner  life  of  the  Church  itself.  Unity  manifests  itself 
in  association ;  but  association  is  not  always  the  sign  of 
organic  unity. 

We  differ,  therefore,  from  the  Roman  Catholics  in  regard 
to  the  nature  of  this  unity  of  the  Church.  In  the  Roman 
system  it  consists  in  centralization :  in  the  strict  subjection 
of  the  laity  to  the  clergy,  of  the  priests  to  the  bishops  and  of 
all  to  the  pope.  History  informs  us  that  this  centralization 
was  perfected  by  degrees,  until  at  last  all  unity,  together 
with  the  gift  of  infallibility,  became  centered  in  the  pope. 
Now,  such  a  centralization,  however  specious  it  may  appear, 
at  first  sight,  is  too  complicated  and  inconvenient,  when  we 
consider  that  it  has  to  keep  together  a  society  dispersed  over 
the  whole  world.  To  throw  the  whole  burden  of  spiritual 
unification  on  the  shoulders  of  a  company  of  men,  or  of  one 
man,  and  he,  too,  an  old  man  whose  energy  is  gone  and 
whose  mental  discernment  and  penetration  must  naturally 
be  supposed  to  be  on  the  wane,  seems  to  be  tempting  God 
and  compelling  Him  to  perform  a  perpetual  miracle,  and  we 
do  not  find  that  the  pope  has  the  promise  of  such  a  miracle, 
nor,  indeed,  does  he  show  any  sign  thereof. 

History  teaches  that  centralization  in  vast  secular 
empires  inevitably  tends  to  become  the  germ  of  weakness  and 
decay,  and  we  do  not  see  any  reason  that  would  justify  us  in 
making  an  exception  in  favour  of  ecclesiastical  governments. 


116  Roman  Catholicism, 

Hence,  may  not  the  coping  stone  of  papal  infallibility,  tliat 
was  placed  on  the  Eoman  edifice  in  the  Vatican  council,  be 
too  heavy  for  its  strength  and  prove  the  beginning  of  its 
final  downfall  ?  May  not  Rome,  by  aiming  at  too  much, 
lose  all  ?  Formerly  Koman  Catholics  might  with  some  pride 
have  gloried  in  the  unity  of  their  Church,  as  the  grand  rule 
of  catholicity  :  quod  semper,  uhique  et  ah  omnibus  gave  it,  to 
a  certain  degree,  a  reasonable  and  spiritual  nature  j  but  have 
they  cause  to  do  so  still  ?  Are  there  not  reasons  for  looking 
into  the  future  with  gloomy  foreboding  1 

The  Koman  Catholic  mind  seems  to  be  so  thoroughly 
imbued  with  the  mediaeval  idea  that  the  Church  is  a  mon- 
archy, that  it  can  entertain  no  other  conception  of  unity  than 
that  of  a  monarchical  one.  J^ow,  that  the  Church  is  capable 
of  such  a  union  is  not  the  question,  nor  do  we  assert  that  it 
is  altogether  against  the  genius  of  Christianity  that  Christians 
should  unite  under  one  ecclesiastical  government  where  and 
when  such  a  union  would  be  expedient  and  productive  of 
good.  We  do  not  even  dispute  that  the  Church,  under  the 
Roman  empire,  did  approximate  closely  to  such  a  unity. 

But  we  contend  that  a  unity  of  that  kind  would  be  merely 
of  ecclesiastical  appointment.  We  cannot  allow  that  it  is 
necessary  or  was  ever  intended  by  the  Divine  Master.  We 
believe  that  all  things  necessary  to  the  constitution  of  the 
Church  are  undoubtedly  mentioned  in  Scripture.  Now,  the 
sacred  writers,;  when  they  speak  of  the  unity  of  the  Church, 
never  state  that  it  should  be  preserved  by  a  general  govern- 
ment endowed  with  infallibility.  We  find,  on  the  contrary, 
that  the  Apostles  in  founding  Churches  disregarded  such  a 
fnl§  of  uiiitj.  If  they  had  established  such  a  central  power, 
thej  would  hSbVe  m§mtmimd  the  person  or  persons  who  were 
ifirested  witli  so  importasi  SiJ  SkVLthont/f  hid  down  rules  for 


Infallibility  and  Church-Unity,  117 

its  right  guidance  and  safeguards  against  its  possible  abuse. 
They  would  have  exhorted  their  converts  to  appeal  to  it 
whenever  necessary.  Schisms  and  heresies  would  have  been 
removed  by  it.  They  themselves  would  have  taught  by 
theii'  own  example  how  to  treat  and  reverence  such  a  supreme 
authority.  But  what  do  we  find  %  Each  Church  separately 
ordering  its  own  afiairs  in  its  own  way  and  without  reference 
to  others.  Any  one  reading  the  writings  of  St.  Paul  to  par- 
ticular Churches  must  be  convinced  that  each  Church  was 
endowed  with  perfect  liberty  to  manage  its  own  afiairs,  settle 
its  own  disputes  and  govern  its  own  members.  We  find, 
indeed,  that  they  had  intercommunion  one  with  another; 
relieved  each  other  in  their  poverty  and  distress,  assisted 
each  other  in  settling  controversies  and  removing  heresies, 
but  nowhere  do  we  find  a  general  government  in  existence 
such  as  Roman  Catholics  assert  to  be  essential  to  the  unity 
of  the  Church. 

In  fact,  how  could  it  have  been  in  accordance  with  the 
nature  and  genius  of  Christianity  which,  as  our  Saviour 
afl&rms,  is  a  kingdom  not  of  this  world?  An  ecclesiastical 
prince,  with  a  general  government,  would  soon  degenerate 
into  a  temporal  prince  surrounded  by  all  the  worldly  pomp 
of  sovereignty,  using  all  kinds  of  worldly  means  and  doubt- 
ful political  intrigues  to  support  his  dignity.  And  has  not 
all  this  come  to  pass  with  the  Church  of  Rome?  Has  she  not 
been  the  great  political  Church  of  the  world  ever  since  she 
put  forth  her  claim  to  infallibility  ?  What  other  Church  has 
been  so  constantly  embroiled  in  political  intrigues?  What 
other  Church  meddles  so  much  in  politics,  in  order  to  control 
and  subordinate  the  State  %  Such  being  the  nature  of  this 
centre  of  unity,  must  we  not  conclude  that  the  unity  result- 
ing therefrom  is  merely  a  political  unity? 


118  Roman  Catholicism, 

We  believe  not  only  that  Christ  never  intended  to  have 
the  members  of  His  Church  bound  together  in  the  kind  of 
unity  Roman  Catholics  advocate,  but  we  feel  certain  that  it 
must  always  be  injurious  to  the  Church,  as  history  amply 
proves.  Indeed,  to  what  advantage  could  such  a  connection 
of  Churches,  cemented  by  centralization,  tend  in  promot- 
ing the  great  design  of  Christianity,  which  is  to  bring  man 
to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  to 
save  their  souls,  to  sanctify  them,  to  implant  in  their  hearts 
the  love  of  God  and  of  their  fellow  men — in  a  word,  to  make 
them  good  Christians'?  All  these  ends  may  be  obtained 
without  combining  men  into  such  a  union. 

Whatever  Roman  Catholics  may  say  to  the  contrary,  it  is 
evident  that  the  unity  which  they  predicate  of  the  Church 
of  Christ  comes  from  without,  not  from  within;  it  results 
in  the  blind  obedience  of  the  members  to  the  authority  of 
men  claiming  infallibility,  and  from  a  rigorous  administra- 
tion of  discipline.  The  unity  which  we  want  must  be 
organic,  that  is,  'proceeding  from  the  inner  life  of  the  Church 
and  manifesting  itself  in  compassing  those  ends  for  which 
Christianity  was  established.  We  want  nothing  more  or 
less  than  that  unity  which  is  plainly  set  forth  in  Scripture. 

The  subject  is  highly  interesting;  but  as  time  compels  me 
to  be  brief,  I  can  merely  touch  upon  the  principal  points.  I 
refer  you  for  a  fuller  consideration  of  the  subject  to  Dr. 
Barrow's  excellent  ^^  Discourse  on  the  Unity  of  the  Church^ 

What  then  does  Scripture  teach  in  this  regard  ?  In  the 
first  place,  that  the  Church  is  one  by  consent  of  faith  in  the 
truths  which  God  has  revealed.  The  Church  is  the  kingdom 
of  the  truth,  and  those  that  "are  of  the  truth"  will  be  one 
in  faith.  They  may  have  different  explanations  of  facts,  but 
in  regard  to  the  facts  themselves  they  will  have  one  and  the 


Infallibility  and  Church-Unity.  119 

same  faith.  We  are  next  taught  by  Scripture  that  all 
Christians  are  united  by  the  honds  of  mutual  charity  and 
good  will.  "Hereby,"  says  Christ,  "shall  all  men  know 
that  ye  are  my  disciples  if  ye  love  one  another."  We  find, 
again,  that  all  Christians  have  one  and  the  same  sinritual 
relationship,  they  are  the  sons  of  God  and  brethren  of  Christ. 
That  is  the  unity  of  Christian  brotherhood.  They  are  mem- 
bers of  Christ — subjects  of  that  spiritual  kingdom  whereof 
Christ  is  the  Head.  We  are  further  informed  that  Christians 
are  linked  together  in  peaceable  concord,  communicating  in 
works  of  piety  and  devotion,  defending  and  promoting  the 
common  interests  of  their  profession;  that  they  are  united 
by  the  same  sacraments ;  that  by  baptism  they  profess  their 
faith  in  a  common  salvation  and  are  admitted  into  one  and 
the  same  Church ;  and  that  in  the  Lord's  Supper  they  ap- 
proach the  sq,me  sacred  table  as  brethren  professing  their 
faith  in  Christ  as  the  common  food  of  their  souls,  the  Bread 
of  Life  that  came  down  from  heaven.  They  are  exhorted  to 
assist  one  another  in  the  common  defence  of  the  truth  when 
assailed,  in  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  and  the  enlarge- 
ment of  the  Church:  We  are  further  taught  that  Christians 
should  pray  and  converse  together  for  edification  and  advice  ; 
and  as  the  clergy  are  the  leaders  of  the  people,  we  find  them 
foremost  in  all  these  offices  of  union  and  mutual  intercourse 
between  the  different  members  and  branches  of  the  Church. 
The  essential  rules  of  discipline  laid  down  in  the  Bible  are 
few  and  simple,  and  it  is  very  easy  for  Christians  to  be 
united  in  them. 

Such  are  the  principal  features  of  the  unity  which  Scrip- 
ture sets  forth  as  an  essential  characteristic  of  the  Church 
of  Christ.     How  different  from  the  Koman  system  ! 

Is  it  not  evident  that  the  unity  of  the  Church,  which  has 


120  Roman  Catholicism. 

to  comprise  all  nations  and  kindreds  of  the  earth,  men  of  the 
most  diverse  temperament  and  dispositions,  habits  and  cus- 
toms, must  not  be  ham|...ed  by  too  many  conditions?  It 
must  be  eminently  catholic,  that  is,  as  universal  as  the  idea 
of  man  and  adaptable  to  every  human  individual.  As  man- 
kind is  one.  notwithstanding  the  great  variety  of  the  human 
species ;  so  also  the  Church  of  Christ  must  be  ont,  for  she  is 
intended  to  embrace  all  the  species.  And  as  the  unity  of 
mankind  is  natural  and  independent  of  man,  in  like  manner 
the  unity  of  the  Church  proceeds  from  the  same  supreme 
Author,  and  is  independent  of  any  maxims  of  unification  man 
may  devise.  The  God  and  Father  of  mankind  is  also  the 
God  and  Father  of  the  Church.  In  reality,  then,  the  Church 
and  mankind  are  not  two  distinct  societies.  The  truths  God 
has  revealed  and  the  works  He  has  wrought  are  intended  for 
the  benefit  of  all  mankind ;  and  whosoever  perceives  and  em- 
braces them  by  faith,  belongs  consciously  to  the  Church. 
The  truth  is  the  chief  object  of  God's  loving  concern  for  man- 
kind, not  this  or  that  particular  religious  association.  The 
truth  alone  has  the  power  of  uniting  men  together  in  a 
society  that  does  not  depend  on  their  will  or  pleasure ;  hence 
those  that  "  are  of  the  truth  hear  Christ's  voice ;"  they  are 
those  "  that  should  be  saved  and  are  added  to  the  Church." 
In  reality,  then,  as  the  truth  is  intended  for  the  whole  race  of 
Adam,  all  mankind  should  be  God's  Church ;  but  as  all  men 
do  not  perceive  the  truth,  or  are  unwilling  to  embrace  it, 
only  the  holders  and  adherents  of  it  are  said  to  form  the 
Church  of  Christ.  Hence  we  may  easily  perceive  that  the 
Church  is  not  an  imperium  in  imperio — a  kingdom  within  a 
kingdom,  a  society  within  the  great  human  society — but  a 
part  of  the  kingdom,  a  part  of  the  Church  of  mankind,  but 
that  part,  indeed,  which  possesses  the  truth  intended  for  all, 


Infallibility  and  Church-Unity.  121 

obeys  the  laws  and  promotes  the  true  interests  of  the  country 
and  the  world.  As  the  class  of  good  citizens  do  not  form  an 
independent  and  separate  kingdom  within  the  kingdom,  but 
only  constitute  the  better  portion  that  may  say  to  the 
rest :  We  are  citizens  like  you,  but  we  wish  that  you 
were  such  as  we  are  and  would  see  as  we  see  the 
true  interests  of  the  nation :  So,  in  like  manner, 
the  members  of  Christ's  Church  may  say  to  the  rest  of 
the  human  family.  We,  like  you,  belong  to  the  great 
Church  of  mankind  \  you  do  not  see  this  fact,  but  we  do, 
and  we  desire  you  to  see  and  acknowledge  it  also  ;  we  per- 
ceive many  truths  revealed  by  God  for  your  and  our  benefit ; 
you  do  not  perceive  them.  We  wish  you  could ;  we  see  that 
God  has  done  many  things  in  your  and  our  behalf ;  you  do 
not  see  it.  We  wish  you  would  acknowledge  this  likewise ;  in 
a  word,  we  desire  that  you  would  see  and  act  as  we  do  \  then 
all  mankind  would  be  the  Church  of  God  indeed. 

The  truth,  then,  revealed  by  God  through  Jesus  Christ,  is 
the  bond  of  unity  in  the  Church,  and  as  this  truth  is  no- 
where deposited  but  in  the  Bible,  we  must  conclude  that 
this  sacred  volume  is  the  source  and  centre  of  all  Christian 
unity.  "We  know  that  the  advocates  of  Church-infallibility 
think  themselves  such  necessary  instruments  for  all  good 
purposes,  that  nothing  can  well  be  done  unless  they  do  it ; 
that  no  unity  or  constancy  in  religion  can  be  maintained,  but 
inevitably  Christendom  must  fall  to  ruin  and  confusion,  un- 
less they  support  it.  But  we  are  certain  that  Christ  upon 
His  ascension  gave  us  His  Apostles  for  all  these  excellent 
purposes,  by  their  preaching  while  they  lived,  and  by  their 
writings  for  ever."    (Chillingworth.) 

We  see  no  other  means  of  unity  but  the  Bible.  Yet 
Boman  Catholics  sneeringly  bid  us  look  at  our  divisions  and 


122  Roman  Catholicis^n. 

tell  them  what  unity  the  Bible  has  given  us.  Nay,  some  of 
our  Protestant  brethren  feel  discouraged,  and  in  their  per- 
plexity know  not  whither  to  turn. 

Methinks,  that  neither  B-oman  Catholics  nor  alarmed  Pro- 
testants understand  the  true  nature  of  unity.  They  imagine 
that  some  Church  of  one.  denomination  or  one  communion 
must  be  always,  to  the  peremptory  exclusion  of  all  other 
communions,  the  wTioIq  Church  of  Christ.  They  do  not  re- 
flect that  unity  does  not  exclude  variety,  but  includes  it,  in 
beautiful  harmony.  As  variety  in  unity  constitutes  the 
beauty  of  nature,  so  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  there  is  a  beau- 
tiful variety  in  a  harmonious  unity. 

Let  them  look  at  the  first  ages  of  Christianity,  before 
Rome  held  sway  over  the  greater  part  of  the  Church.     What 
unity  do  we  find  in  those  times  %     Surely  not  that  which  we 
behold  in  the  Boman  Catholic  Church,  for  there  was  no  general 
government  uniting  them  all.     But  in  one  and  the  same 
Church   of    Christ   we   find    difierent    associations   called 
Churches,  not  indeed  subject  one  to  another,  yet  cherishing 
the  same  Bible,  professing  the  same  faith,  united  in  love  and 
charity,  using  the  same  ordinances,   assisting  each  other  in 
settling  controversies,  composing  schisms  and  removing  here- 
sies by  mutual  counsel  in  conferences  and  synods  ;  for  they 
had  intercommunion  with  each  other  in  all  things  pertaining 
to  the  Christian  religion.     Still  they  difiered  in  many  things  ; 
they  had  not  the  same- form  of  worship,  and  the  only  rule 
they  appear  to  have  held  in  common  was  "  to  do  everything 
decently  and  in  order."     There  was  not  the  same  discipline 
in  all  Churches  ;  they  were  greatly  governed  by  circumstan- 
ces in  those  changeful  times  of  the  decay  and  fall  of  the  Roman 
empire  and  invasion  by  northern   barbarians.       Yet  who 
will  ajfirm   that  there  was   no   unity    in   those    primitive 


Infallibility  and  Church-Unity  123 

times  of  Christianity,  albeit  one  widely  differing  from  the 
Roman  ideal  % 

Now  let  us  come  to  the  existing  divisions  of  Protestantism. 
Have  we  really  so  much  reason  to  be  alarmed  and  dissatis- 
fied as  some  of  our  discouraged  ones  would  make  us  believe. 
We  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  Church  of  Rome  had  com- 
pletely destroyed  the  primitive  liberty  in  unity ;  Our  re- 
formers had  not  only  to  restore  this  liberty,  but  in  many 
cases  to  recall  even  the  very  idea  of  it,  so  completely  had  it 
been  obliterated  by  the  habit  of  blind  obedience  to  papal 
government.  Ought  we  not  to  be  thankful  that  this  blessed 
liberty  in  unity  has  been  restored  to  us,  after  many  painful 
struggles?  It  could  hardly  be  expected  that  this  liberty  would 
be  rightly  understood  and  appreciated  all  at  once  ;  for  such 
mighty  reformations  require  several  generations  before  they 
come  to  full  maturity.  The  old  leaven  of  popery  continued 
to  work  in  the  Protestant  masses,  for  a  considerable  time. 
Modern  Church-history  informs  us  that,  while  with  many 
this  liberty  degenerated  into  licence,  the  iron  heel  of  re- 
pression was  put  on  it  by  others.  Thus,  instead  of  one 
papacy,  we  had  virtually  several  Protestant  popedoms ;  and 
while  in  other  cases  men  were  allowed  to  wander  from  sect 
to  sect,  they  were  often  denied  reasonable  liberty  within  the 
pale  of  one  and  the  same  sect.  In  short,  not  having  the 
sagacity  of  experience  possessed  by  the  Church  of  Rome, 
many  blundered  worse  than  that  Church  had  ever  done,  ex- 
cept in  its  early  tentative  centuries.  But  let  us  forget  the 
past  and  look  at  our  present  state. 

We  have  the  blessing  of  religious  liberty,  but  have  we 
unity  %  Much  more  than  many  of  us  will  allow.  With  the 
exception  of  a  small  fraction,  whom  we  do  not  consider  as 
belonging  to  us,  all  our  Churches  are  evangelical,  believing 


124  Roman  Catholicism. 

in  Christ  the  Son  of  God.  The  Bible  is  our  common  mle  of 
faith.  We  all  contribute  of  our  means  to  have  it  printed 
and  circulated — we  all  stand  together  on  the  common 
platform  of  the  Bible  Society.  All  our  denominations  have 
the  same  faith  ;  we  may  lawfully  differ  in  the  exposition  of 
revealed  truth,  but  we  all  believe  in  the  same  way  of  sal- 
vation. Here  again  the  Tract  Society  is  a  common  platform 
on  which  we  meet  together.  We  are  united  in  Christian  works 
of  charity  and  benevolence.  We  admit  each  other  to  the 
same  sacraments,  and  preach  the  same  Gospel.  And  to  what 
do  our  differences  amount  ?  To  slight  variations  of  view  on 
Church-government  and  the  manner  of  conducting  public 
worship.  But  we  are  not  guilty  of  these  differences;  we 
have  not  made  them — we  have  inherited  them,  and  as  we 
are  influenced  by  education  and  circumstances,  we  have  ac- 
cepted them.  We  are  justified  in  thinking  that  we  are 
really  more  at  one  than  would  externally  appear.  What 
does  that  Protestant  Alliance  mean,  whose  annual  meetings 
are  held  with  Christian  joy  and  enthusiasm;  we  think  it  is 
the  manifestation  of  an  organic  Christian  unity  brought 
about  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  True,  every  association  is  not 
organic,  but  organic  unity,  arising  from  within,  manifests 
itself  in  association ;  and  may  not  the  Protestant  Alliance 
be  the  result  of  such  inner"  unity  ?  May  it  not  proclaim  to 
the  world  that  we  are  united ;  I  do  not  mean  that  the  dif- 
ferent denominations  as  such,  that  is  as  organized  bodies,  are 
at  one  with  each  other,  for  these  are  still,  unfortunately, 
bigoted  and  exclusive,  but  that  a  vast  number  of  Christians 
within  these  bodies,  and  in  spite  of  them,  are  united  in  faith 
and  charity,  and  desire  to  manifest  this  their  inner  union  by 
an  outward  alliance.  And  is  not  this  Alliance  a  remarkable 
proof  of  the  strong  aspiration  of  Christians  for  an  outward. 


Infallibility  and  Church-Unity^  125 

unity  untrammeled  by  the  jarring  influences  of  a  bigoted  and 
narrow-minded  denominationalism  %  We  think  the  laity  of 
our  evangelical  Churches  are  more  united  in  the  ever  one  and 
the  same  Church  of  Christ  than  the  clergy ;  we  are  sorry  to 
admit  that  the  latter  hold  more  or  less  aloof  from  mutual 
intercourse  and  Christian  intercommunion.  Is  there  no  way 
of  burying  old  prejudices  and  theological  feuds,  without  com- 
promising principle  %  The  Spirit  of  Grod  seems  to  be  moving 
within  the  Church,  expanding  the  views  of  men  and  enlarg- 
ing their  hearts.  Yet  we  do  not  desire  a  greater  and  closer 
unity  than  there  was  in  the  primitive  Churches  \  it  would, 
perhaps,  not  be  desirable  to  dispense  altogether  with  the 
different  denominations.  Such  a  measure  would  probably  be 
injurious  to  Christian  liberty  and  energy  and  might  imper- 
ceptibly lead  us  to  a  new  kind  of  popery — the  natural  out- 
growth of  centralization  in  ecclesiastical  matters.  But  what 
we  want  is  to  take  the  sting  out  of  denominationalism. 
Away  with  that  denominational  envy  which  is  the  mother  of 
uncharitableness !  Kemove  that  wall  of  exclusiveness  which 
is  akin  to  popery !  Let  there  be  liberty  in  the  great  Church 
of  Christ.  Let  no  new  sects  be  formed  for  every  immaterial 
difference  in  doctrine  or  liturgy.  Let  that  spiritual 
and  ecclesiastical  pride  be  removed  which  has  been  the 
source  of  all  the  schisms  and  heresies  within  the  Church ; 
and,  being  united  in  faith  and  rooted  in  charity,  let  us  abound 
in  good  works  and  promote  the  cause  of  the  Church  of  Christ, 
within  which  there  may  be  separate  denominations  analogous 
to  the  various  associations  and  Churches  of  primitive  Chris- 
tianity. Yes,  let  us  look  upon  them  as  analogous  to  those, 
taking  into  consideration  the  different  circumstances  of  times 
and  cQuntries. 


126  Roman  Catholicism. 

We  think  that  Roman  Catholics  have  not  much  reason  for 
sneering  at  us  on  account  of  our  differences,  especially  when 
we  consider  the  inherent  liberty  of  Protestantism  and  the 
outspoken  character  of  its  members.  The  divisions  that  we 
have  openly  acknowledged,  Roman  Catholics  harbour  con- 
cealed within  theii'  Church,  as  we  shall  see  lq  a  subsequent 
lecture. 


Part  IL 


TEE  PRACTICAL    WORKING   OF  THE  INFALLI 
BILITY-DOCTRINE  IN  THE  CHURCH 
OF  ROME. 


LECTUEE  I. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  CHURCH-INFALLIBILITY  HAS  NOT 
SETTLED  CONTROVERSIES  OF  FAITH. 

IN  the  preceding  lectures,  we  have  briefly  reviewed  the 
arguments  which  Eoman  Catholic  divines  generally  ad- 
vance to  prove  their  Church's  claim  to  infallibility,  and  found 
that  they  are  not  conclusive.  We  have  seen,  too,  in  what 
sense  the  Church  of  Christ  is  infallible.  Our  researches  have 
led  us  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Word  of  God,  with  the 
assistance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  the  infallible  element  in  the 
Church.  We  believe  that  both  in  the  Church  of  Eome  and 
in  the  other  Christian  bodies  those  that  are  saved,  are  saved 
through  this  enlightening  influence  and  no  other.  What- 
ever Eoman  Catholic  zealots  may  say  to  the  contrary,  we 
are  thoroughly  convinced,  that  the  doctrine  of  hierarchical 
^or  papal  infallibility  and  the  other  distinctive  Eoman  dogmas 
occupy  very  little  the  minds  of  the  Christians  within  their 
communion ;  these  distinctive  tenets  are,  as  it  were,  in  the 
background  of  their  souls  and  do  not  enter  into  their  spir- 
itual life.  Besides,  there  are  great  truths  underlying  the 
errors  of  Eome,  and  the  Spirit  of  God  leads  the  sincere  men 
among  them  to  minimize  the  distinctive  erroneous  doctrines 
and  thus  to  cling  to  these  truths,  separating  the  chaff  from 
the  wheat.  Nay,  the  greater  the  errors,  the  greater  the 
truths  that  underlie  them.  Now,  sincere  men,  in  their  pro. 
cess  Oi  minimizing,  lose  sight  of  the  errors,  fasten  their  at- 
9 


130  Roman  Catholicism. 

tention  solely  on  the  truths  and  believe  in  them  as  the  ob- 
jects of  their  faith.  Thus  we  are  justified  in  believing  that 
good  Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant  Christians  have  the 
same  faith  and  are  animated  by  the  same  spirit  all  the  world 
over.  The  Spirit  of  God  leads  both,  although  in  difierent 
ways,  to  the  knowledge  of  the  same  truth.  This  reflection 
should  serve  as  a  caution  to  our  bigotry. 

The  result  of  our  preceding  enquiries  is,  that  dejure  the 
Roman  Catholic  hierarchy  is  not  infallible.  "We  could  have 
compassed  the  same  object  by  proving  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  has  actually  erred,  distorting  some  doctrines  and 
adding  others  to  the  deposit  of  faith,  in  a  word,  that  she  is 
de  facto  fallible;  for  the  institution  that  is  not  infallible  de 
facto  cannot  be  said  to  enjoy  this  gift  dejure.  The  errors  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  have  been  so  often  and  so  thoroughly 
discussed  and  refuted,  that  we  consider  it  needless  for  us  to 
enter  extensively  upon  this  field  of  controversy.  We  shall  rest 
content  in  the  remaining  lectures  of  this  course,  with  in- 
dicating some  features  that  may  assist  us  in  understanding 
the  nature  and  spirit  of  the  Roman  system. 

And,  in  the  first  place,  we  maintain  that  Roman  Catholics 
do  not  realize  and  attain  the  end  for  which  they  contend, 
that  the  gift  of  infallibility  has  been  bestowed  upon  the 
Church.  We  shall  show,  in  this  lecture,  that  the  Roman 
hierarchy,  with  the  pope  as  its  head,  although  claiming  in- 
fallibility for  that  purpose,  is  unable  to  settle  controversies 
f  faith. 

At  the  outset,  in  settling  such  controversies,  they  start 
with  the  supposition  that  he  who  raises  them  must  be  governed 
by  evil  passions  and  instigated  by  Satan  to  difier  from  the 
teaching  of  the  Church;  for,  since  they  believe  her  infallible 
and  her  doctrine  the  truth,  they  conclude  that  doubt  as  to 


Infallibility  and  Controversies  of  Faith.       131 

the  truth  of  her  teaching  can  arise  from  wicked  motives 
alone.  But  above  all,  they  suspect  his  sincerity ;  for  they 
assume  that  he  cannot  but  know  the  truth  of  the  Church,  and 
that  he  knowingly  and  obstinately  resists  it.  They  believe 
that  their  Church  bears  so  luminously  the  marks  of  being  the 
authorized  expounder  of  truth,  to  wit,  her  unity,  sanctity, 
catholicity,  and  apostolicity,  that  whatever  reasons  may 
justify  an  outsider  in  not  embracing  her  doctrines,  a  member 
who  is  surrounded  by  all  her  light  cannot  have  no  plea  justify- 
ing him  in  controverting  her  teaching.  They  cannot  plead 
for  him  "invincible  ignorance"  or  the  love  of  truth,  and 
therefore  their  system  compels  them  to  doubt  his  sincerity, 
from  the  very  outset.  What  an  impression  must  the  theory 
of  his  being  a  turbulent  spirit  and  an  obstinate  heretic,  en- 
tertained a  'priori  by  that  infallible  tribunal,  produce  on  the 
enquirer  after  truth  who  is  conscious  of  his  honesty  !  Instead 
of  inspiring  him  with  a  spirit  of  reconciliation  and  submission, 
it  tends  to  alienate  his  affections  from  the  hierarchy,  for  he 
feels  that  his  moral  character  is  impugned.  He  is  anxious 
to  have  light  in  his  difficulties,  but  the  very  manifestation  of 
his  doubts  is  looked  upon  with  suspicion.  He  is  conscious 
that  there  is  no  good  understanding  between  him  and  that 
part  of  his  Church  which  claims  infallibility.  Does  such  an 
impression  conduce  to  a  satisfactory  settlement  of  the  con- 
troversy *? 

But  will  it  be  settled  if  it  be  allowed  to  go  before  the 
judge  %  It  is  an  acknowledged  maxim  that,  in  determining 
any  matter  in  dispute,  the  judge  shall  not  be  one  of  the  liti- 
gant parties ;  but  the  contrary  is  the  rule  in  Boman  Catholic 
controversy.  When  the  enquirer  doubts  the  teaching  of  the 
hierarchy  and  defends  the  opposite  doctrine,  who  is  the  judge 
between  them?    The  Bible?     No.     Tradition?      No;    but 


132  Roman  Catholicism. 

the  hierarchs  themselves.  And  what  judgment  will  they 
give  %  Undoubtedly,  they  will  confirm  their  own  teaching, 
however  erroneous  it  may  be.  Is  it  not  plain  that  con- 
troversies of  faith  cannot  be  settled  in  this  manner?  They 
are  rather  perpetuated  by  perpetuating  the  teaching  which 
gave  them  life  and  being. 

Now,  is  the  character  of  these  judges  such  as  to  inspire 
confidence  ?  The  court  consists  either  of  the  whole  episco- 
pate, or,  since  the  Vatican  council,  of  the  pope  alone,  with 
his  curia.  Does  this  court  bear  unmistakably  the 
marks  of  infallibility  ?  By  no  means.  Commencing  with 
the  head  and  passing  a  superficial  glance  over  the  episcopal 
body,  it  bears  the  unmistakable  marks  of  partiality.  They 
are  a  body  of  men  like  other  men,  full  of  human  frailties, 
blinded  by  the  glitter  and  pride  of  their  dignity,  and  by 
human  passions,  quick  to  anger,  slow  to  forgive.  They  try 
to  »verpower  the  accused  enquirer  by  the  external  show  of 
ecclesiastical  splendour  and  despotism.  There  is  no  worse 
despotism  than  that  of  spiritual  lords.  They  themselves  hold 
the  doctrine  in  controversy;  therefore  the  Church  holds  it ; 
therefore  all  the  members  must  believe  it.  Whosoever  does 
not  believe  as  they  do  is  a  heretic,  and  must  be  dealt  with 
accordingly.  Can  the  enquirer  be  convinced  by  such  a  body 
of  spiritual  lords  %  Is  this  to  be  our  kind  and  loving  Mother- 
Church  1 

How  difierent  from  theirs  is  our  judge  of  controversies. 
We  find  no  difficulty  in  believing  calmly,  in  our  own  mind, 
that  a  Book  whose  pages  we  read  with  all  sincerity  in  our 
closet  is  the  infallible  Word  of  God ;  but  we  find  it  impossi- 
ble to  believe  that  such  a  body  of  spiritual  lords  is  infallible. 
In  the  Bible  we  see  the  marks  of  infallibility ;  in  the  episco- 
pal body  or  the  pope  we  fail  to  detect  them.   When  we  read  the 


Infallibility  and  Controversies  of  Faith.      133 

Bible,  our  passions  are  not  aroused  and  goaded  by  ill-treat- 
ment or  the  vindictiveness  of  other  men ;  but  if  we  should 
have  to  listen,  for  the  salvation  of  our  souls,  to  such  a  tribu- 
nal of  controversy,  there  is  every  danger  that  our  tempers 
would  be  provoked  by  their  spiritual  pride  and  priestly 
despotism. 

And  how  does  the  episcop^  or  the  pope,  as  a  tribunal, 
proceed  against  him  who  is  to  be  judged  ?  They  exclude 
discussion,  and  demand  unreserved,  absolute  and  immediate 
subjection.  They  ask  of  him  :  Art  thou  the  author  of  this 
publication,  and  dost  thou  hold  such  and  such  a  doctrine  % 
If  the  answer  be  in  the  affirmative,  they  demand  recantation; 
and  if  that  be  refused,  condemnation  immediately  follows. 

Before  giving  a  decision,  the  judge  should  follow  the 
maxim :  Audi  alteram  partem.  But  the  Roman  Catholic 
judge  does  not  follow  this  principle ;  for,  although  himself 
one  of  the  interested  parties,  he  denies  the  benefit  of  defense 
to  the  accused.  The  real  question  should  be,  not  whether 
the  party  holds  such  and  such  a  doctrine,  but  whether  it  be 
true  or  erroneous ;  and  it  should  be  so  settled  that  real  con- 
viction of  the  mind  would  result.  To  decree  the  truth  or 
falsehood  of  a  controverted  doctrine,  without  any  previous 
discussion  whatever,  and  to  demand  immediate  and  absolute 
submission,  savours  altogether  of  spiritual  despotism,  and  can- 
not satisfy  the  mind ;  and  where  the  mind  is  not  persuaded, 
there  is  no  real  settlement  of  cotitroversy.  Such  a  settlement 
requires  to  be  rational,  for  men  will  not  allow  themselves  to 
be  led  and  silenced  like  ignorant  brutes;  they  demand  to  be 
treated  with  the  deference  due  to  rational  beings.  If  a 
member,  therefore,  disagrees  with  the  pope  or  the  bishops  of 
the  Church,  in  matters  of  faith,  he  must  make  up  his  mind 
beforehand  that  he  will  be  condemned  by  them  ii   he  does 


134  Roman  Catholicisnt. 

not  submit  to  their  decree;  or  if  he  chooses  not  to  incur  the 
wrath  of  a  powerful  hierarchy,  he  is  compelled  to  hold  his 
doctrine  in  secret.  Yes,  this  fear  of  incurring  condemnation 
from  the  spiritual  lords  tends  to  fill  the  Church  of  Borne 
with  hypocrites  and  hidden  unbelievers. 

In  controversies  about  spiritual  matters,  or  the  internal 
concerns  of  the  soul,  the  rulj|  of  adjudication  should  not  be 
borrowed  from  the  procedure  of  secular  tribunals  ',  for  these 
judge  only  of  external  things,  and  settle  disputes  by  exami- 
nation of  facts  and  application  of  laws,  without  intending  to 
produce  internal  conviction  in  any  of  the  litigants ;  it  may 
be  produced,  but  it  is  not  essential  to  the  settlement  of  the 
dispute.  It  is  far  otherwise  in  spiritual  things.  Here  the 
controversy  cannot  be  considered  as  settled  if  the  mind  has 
not  been  convinced.  Now,  such  a  convincing  settlement  can 
be  better  produced  by  God  than  by  man  ;  and  we  believe 
that  He  effects  it  by  His  Word.  The  silent  page  of  God's 
Word  would  speak  more  powerfully  and  efficaciously  than 
the  thunders  of  a  privileged  hierarchy. 

This  will  appear  still  more  evident  if  we  consider  the 
nature  of  their  decrees  and  definitions.  One  might  expect 
that  they  would  use  such  clear  and  precise  language  as  to 
exclude  every  misunderstanding.  But  it  is  a  well-known 
fact  that  the  terms  employed  are  obscure,  and  unintelligible 
save  to  a  privileged  class.  In  fact,  they  have  a  terminology 
of  their  own,  understood  only  by  their  theologians.  In  fram- 
ing their  definitions  and  decrees  every  endeavour  is  put  forth 
to  avoid  committing  themselves.  Human  prudence  lurks  in 
every  word  and  phrase.  Now,  definitions  begotten  in  human 
prudence,  and  couched  in  cautious  terms  will  also  be  read 
and  appreciated  with  human  prudence,  and  accepted  with  a 
minimizing  caution ;  for  the  Spirit  of  God  does  not  speak 


Infallibility  and  Controversies  of  Faith.      135 

througli  tliem.  How  can  it  be  expected  that  they  should 
produce  the  conviction  of  divine  faith?  They  may  beget 
illusion  for  a  time,  but  not  conviction.  Hence  we  find  that 
the  decrees  of  this  infallible  ecclesiasticism  always  excite 
new  and  fiercer  controversies — some  interpreting  them  in  this, 
others  in  that  sense.  Councils  have  had  to  be  multiplied, 
decree  after  decree  issued,  and  still  the  controversy  has  re- 
mained substantially  as  it  was  before.  Of  what  use  is  eccle- 
siastical infallibility  if  its  decrees  and  definitions  do  not 
settle  controverted  questions,  if  its  terms  are  intelligible 
only  to  those  who  are  advanced  in  theology,  if  even  they 
stand  in  need  of  another  interpreter?  I  must  use  my 
human  reason  and  all  the  rules  of  criticism  in  order  to  un- 
derstand them.  If  my  interpretation  of  the  Bible  does  not 
give  me  di\dne  revelation,  as  they  teach,  but  only  my  own 
thoughts,  how  can  my  interpretation  of  papal  or  episcopal 
decrees  give  me  anything  more  than  my  own  private  views 
of  them  ?  How  can  I  possibly  by  them  obtain  divine  truth  % 
It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  Roman  Catholic  infallibility 
does  not  meet  the  end  for  which  it  is  asserted. 

They  reply  that  the  decrees  and  definitions  are  the  utter- 
ances of  the  living  Church,  and  that  the  living  Church  will 
explain  them  by  the  living  voice,  if  they  require  it. 

We  answer,  written  definitions  and  decrees  are,  in  the 
Boman  Catholic  sense,  another  Scripture  which  requires 
interpretation.  Now  how  may  I  come  within  the  hearing  of 
the  living  voice  of  the  Church  in  order  to  obtain  an  authentic 
and  infallible  explanation  %  Surely,  the  individual  priest  or 
bishop  to  whom  I  have  recourse  is  not  the  Church,  but  a 
fallible  man,  like  myself,  and  may  labour  under  the  same, 
nay,  worse  difficulties  than  my  own.  Shall  I  write  to  the 
pope  ?     Will  he  consider  my  application  worthy  of  a  reply  % 


136  Roman  Catholicism. 

And  if  he  writes  to  me,  will  his  letter  be  an  answer  ex 
cathedra^  in  order  to  assure  me  of  its  infallibility  ?  Or,  will 
it  be  only  a  private  letter?  How  may  I  know  it  to  be  ex 
cathedra  ?  And  after  all,  if  ex  cathedra,  it  would  be  only  a 
letter,  a  written  document,  another  Bible,  and  how  shall  I 
interpret  it  ?  Shall  I  go  to  Eome,  to  obtain  infallible  instruc- 
tion out  of  the  infallible  pope's  own  mouth?  Will  he  admit 
me  to  an  audience  1  If  so,  will  he  speak  to  me  ex  cathedra 
or  only  as  a  private  doctor  ?  We  are  told  that  ex  cathedra 
utterances  ought  not  to  be  too  common,  and  should  be  given 
only  in  extraordinary  emergencies.  How,  then,  shall  I  be 
able  to  hear  the  living  voice  of  the  Church,  in  order  to 
remove  my  doubts  ?  When  Roman  Catholics  inveigh  against 
the  dead  letter  of  the  Bible,  they  are  logically  compelled  to 
inveigh  also  against  the  dead  letter  of  the  decrees  of  their 
popes  and  councils.  They  should  consequently  give  us  easy 
access  to  the  pope  speaking  ex  cathedra  or  to  a  permanent 
general  council.  The  latter  would  be  a  chimera.  We  know 
from  history  with  what  great  difficulties  the  assembling  of 
general  councils  has  always  been  beset.  They  have  required 
almost  always  the  assistance  of  secular  governments;  and 
besides,  such  a  permanent  council  would  permanently  deprive 
the  flocks  of  their  pastors ;  it  would,  therefore,  involve  moral 
and  physical  impossibilities.  Whom,  therefore,  does  the 
living  voice  of  the  living  Church  reach  1  Only  those  who 
were  present  in  the  general  councils  hitherto  held.  Oh, 
happy  few !  You  alone  have  enjoyed  the  blessing  of  receiv- 
ing the  rule  of  faith  that  Christ  intended  for  all  his  people ; 
of  receiving  it,  not  entire,  but  in  some  points  only — those 
that  were  then  defined  !  What  a  complicated  machinery  is 
this  Eoman  Catholic  tribunal  for  settling  controversies  of 
faith  !     And  after  all,  how  inaccessible  !  how  utterly  useless 


Infallibility  and  Controversies  of  Faith.       137 

for  the  purpose  it  is  intended  to  compass !    What  an  imposi- 
tion upon  the  dehided  members ! 

After  all,  they  are  compelled  to  give  up  their  boasted  Ivoing 
voice  of  the  Church,  and  to  come  back  to  written  documents, 
the  definitions  and  decrees  of  their  councils  and  popes.  Do 
they  thus  not  virtually  acknowledge  that  these  are  their  Bible? 
To  a  Bible,  then,  as  a  rule  of  faith,  they  must  return,  although 
it  be  a  Bible  made  by  themselves — a  Bible  the  canon  of 
which  is  uncertain  and  constantly  on  the  increase  as  in  the 
process  of  ages  definitions  and  decrees  are  multiplied — a 
Bible  the  contents  of  which  are  not  within  the  covers  of  one 
volume,  but  scattered  throughout  the  ponderous  folios  of 
acts  of  councils  and  papal  constitutions — a  Bible  which, 
instead  of  instructing  and  composing  the  mind,  bewilders  it ; 
instead  of  giving  peace  to  the  heart,  disturbs  it ;  instead  of 
teaching  the  eternal  truths  of  salvation,  establishes  and  glori- 
fies, nay,  deifies,  the  pope  and  the  hierarchy  of  the  Church  of 
Rome — a  Bible  that  banishes  the  true  Bible  of  God  and  places 
itself  in  its  stead.  Such  is  the  Roman  Catholic  Bible  which 
they  are  compelled  to  admit,  and  do  actually  admit — a  Bible 
which  is  the  most  insidious  rival  of  the  true  Bible ;  for,  as  it 
has  no  visible  existence  in  one  volume,  it  is  dijQ&cult  to  refer 
to  it  by  chapter  and  verse,  and  therefore  is  less  assailable ; 
but,  nevertheless,  it  is  itself  a  powerful  assailant  under  the 
shelter  of  what  is  called  the  living  voice  of  the  Church. 

From  what  has  been  said  we  conclude  that  the  decrees  of 
the  Church  are  not  of  a  nature  to  produce  conviction,  and  to 
settle  controversies  of  faith.  Let  us  now  see  if  the  means 
they  employ  to  enforce  submission  to  these  decrees  are  calcu- 
lated to  eff'ect  this  end. 

The  first  weapon  they  use  against  those  who  refuse  sub- 
mission is  excommunication.     It  is  said  to  be  a  spiritual 


138  Roman  Catholicism. 

sword,  but  it  has  terrible  temporal  consequences.  They  are 
not  content  with  anathematizing  the  doctrine  of  the  enquirer, 
but  they  condemn  the  person  himself.  As  excommunication 
affects  primarily  and  principally  the  soul,  they  should  not  only 
possess  the  power  of  condemning  the  soul,  but  also  have  a 
knowledge  of  the  state  of  the  conscience  of  the  person  against 
whom  the  excommunication  is  fulminated ;  for  it  would  be 
unjust  to  inflict  so  terrible  a  punishment  on  one  whose  con- 
science is  clear.  Now,  God  alone  has  the  power  to  save  and  to 
condemn;  He  alone  is  the  awful  judge  of  consciences;  He 
alone  is  the  searcher  of  hearts  and  can  know  the  state  of  the 
conscience.  Excommunication,  in  their  sense,  not  only  means 
exclusion  from  the  Church,  both  externally  and  internally, 
but  implies  also  a  curse.  An  excommunicated  person  is  con- 
sidered as  l}dng  under  the  anathema  of  their  Church  and  of 
God ;  for  they  believe  that  God  blesses  and  curses  by  the 
mouth  of  the  Church,  that  is,  of  the  pope  and  his  hierarchy. 

Nay,  they  go  so  far  as  to  excommunicate  and  curse  even 
the  dead,  and  we  could  cite  several  instances  of  this  revenge- 
ful proceeding.  Most  people  are  aware  that  Wickliffe  was 
cursed  long  after  his  death,  that  his  bones  were  exhumed 
and  burnt,  and  the  ashes  thereof  scattered  to  the  four  winds 
of  heaven.  If  their  wrath  extends  even  to  the  dead,  what 
must  it  be  when  it  is  kindled  against  the  living  %  Where  is 
the  tenderness  of  Mother  Church  % 

Excommunication  can  have  no  effect  on  the  soul,  for  it  does 
not  proceed  from  an  authority  that  has  the  power  and  search- 
ing eye  of  God  Almighty  and  Omniscient.  But  it  has,  never- 
theless, some  external  and  temporal  effects  greatly  to  be 
dreaded.  It  excludes  him  who  is  struck  by  it  from  partici- 
pation in  the  sacraments  and  all  the  other  rites  and  ordinances 
OJL  the  Church.    Now,  it  they  really  believe  that  their  Church 


Infallibility  and  Controversies  of  Faith.       139 

is  the  true  one,  they  do  not  follow  the  example  of  the  Good 
Shepherd.  They  determinedly  exclude  the  excommunicated 
from  the  hope  of  ever  returning  to  their  Church  by  not  merely 
depriving  him  of  the  means  of  grace,  but  by  not  even  allow- 
ing him  to  enter  their  places  of  worship.  If  he  dared  to  enter, 
he  would  be  driven  out  by  force,  and  so  long  as  he  remained, 
the  officiating  priest  could  not  proceed  in  the  celebration  of 
the  mass.  Thus  he  is  deprived  altogether  of  the  means  of 
becoming  convinced  of  his  errors,  and  of  being  brought  to 
adopt  other  views.  Nay,  more;  the  "children"  of  this  ten- 
der Mother  Ghui'ch  are  forbidden  all  intercourse  whatsoever 
of  a  social  or  religious  nature  with  the  excommunicated. 
Even  the  common  offices  of  charity  which  God  has  enjoined 
on  all  men  are  prohibited  in  his  behalf.  Excommunication 
has,  therefore,  a  dreadful  outward  efiect  on  the  excommuni- 
cated person.  By  it  he  becomes  an  outcast  from  the  society 
of  Koman  Catholics.  If  he  be  happy  enough  to  form  new 
associations,  or  to  join  other  bodies  of  Christians  whose  views 
coincide  with  his  own,  he  need  not  care.  In  that  case,  he 
will  not  feel  so  much  the  loss  of  the  society  and  good  will  of 
his  former  friends.  But  he  need  not  look  for  such  compen- 
sation in  an  exclusively  Boman  Catholic  country.  Whoever 
has  the  Church  for  his  foe,  in  a  country  where  she  is  power- 
ful and  influential,  must  prepare  himself  for  much  suffering 
or  else  expatriate  himself  and  seek  peace  elsewhere.  Alas  ! 
that  the  love  of  the  Church  should  lead  men  to  such  unchari- 
table proceedings  !  But  no  !  it  cannot  be  the  love  of  that 
fair  Church  of  Christ  which  is  the  kingdom  of  truth ;  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  the  bigotry  of  sect,  and  the  self-love  of  the 
priestly  caste  within  that  sect !  "Would  to  God  Roman 
Catholics  trusted  more  in  the  power  of  the  truth,  and  less 
in  the  weapons  of  carnal  warfare  ! 


140  Roman  Catholicism. 

But  can  excommunication  settle  controversies  of  faith  % 
By  no  means.  Coercion  was  never  intended  by  Christ  to 
convince  men's  minds  of  the  truth,  and  without  this  convic- 
tion there  can  be  no  real  settlement  of  controversies.  The 
dread  of  excommunication,  with  all  its  temporal  consequences 
hanging  over  one's  head,  tends  to  fill  the  Church  of  Rome 
with  hypocrites  and  hidden  unbelievers. 

We  shall  consider,  in  our  next  lecture,  the  other  coercive 
weapons  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 


LECTUEE    II 

THE   COERCIVE  POWER  OF  THE  ROMAN  CHURCH  MILI- 
TATES  AGAINST  HER  CLAIM  TO  INFALLIBILITY. 

ONE  of  the  worst  features  of  episcopal  and  papal  infal- 
libility is  tlie  coercive  power  to  whicli  Rome  lays  claim 
and  which  she  uses  with  a  spirit  that  can  only  be  character- 
ised as  persecuting,  in  order  to  extirpate  heretics.  It  makes 
one  shudder  to  read  the  history  of  the  revolting  and 
heartless  cruelties  to  which  the  system  of  infallibility  has 
given  rise.  The  very  record  of  these  cruelties  condemns  the 
Church  of  Home  for  ever.  One  can  scarcely  believe  that 
they  could  have  been  perpetrated  under  the  sacred  name  of 
Christianity. 

Yet  so  it  is.  The  evidences  that  the  Church  of  Home  is 
possessed  by  a  persecuting  spirit  are  so  numerous  that  we 
hardly  know  where  to  begin.  With  the  facts  before  us,  what 
other  conclusion  can  we  come  to — at  what  other  result  can 
we  arrive,  than  that  the  Church  of  Home  is  thirsty  for  the 
blood  of  heretics  ?  The  ground  taken  by  the  Church  has 
been  that  heresy  is  a  crime  to  be  punished  with  torture  and 
death ;  that  the  Church  is  the  judge  of  what  constitutes 
heresy,  and  has  a  right  to  impose  punishments  upon  all  who 
deny  her  teachings.  She  not  only  claims  to  exercise  control 
in  all  spiritual  matters,  bub  over  mind  and  body  also. 

Roman  Catholics  who  are  at  all  conversant  with  the 
history  of  their  Church  do  not  deny  that  at  times  an  undue 


142  Roman  Caikolicism. 

and  harsh  use  has  been  made  of  the  coercive  power ;  but  they 
attribute  this  abuse  not  to  the  Church,  but  to  the  secular 
instruments  employed  to  carry  out  her  decrees.  They  main- 
tain that  the  Ch  urch  never  approved  of  these  excesses  of 
harshness  and  cruelty.  They  contend,  also,  that  they  were 
caused  rather  by  the  political  reasons  which  secular  govern- 
ments had  in  view  in  extirpating  heretics,  than  by  any  cruel 
disposition  on  the  part  of  the  Church. 

The  fact  is,  the  Church  claims  and  has  confirmed  this 
claim,  by  recent  papal  bulls  and  encyclicals  referred  to  in 
the  notorious  syllabus  and  accepted  by  the  Koman  Catholic 
world,  that  she  has  temporal  coercive  power,  and  that  the 
State  is  bound  to  assist  her  in  executing  the  decrees  of  this 
power.  And  as  she  claims  also  to  have  control  over 
the  State,  all  the  excesses  and  abuses  of  the  coercive  power 
at  which  she  winks  must  be  laid  at  her  door. 

They  are  radically  and  fearfully  wrong.  How  can  they 
prove  the  claim  to  coercion  ?  From  Scripture  1  No.  Christ 
says,  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world  :  if  my  kingdom 
were  of  this  world,  then  would  my  servants  fight,  that  I 
should  not  be  delivered  unto  the  Jews  :  but  now  is  my 
kingdom  not  from  hence."  But  they  defend  it  by  arguments 
drawn  from  the  nature  of  society.  The  Church,  they  say,  is 
a  perfect  society  or  kingdom,  and  as  such  must  be  endowed 
with  legislative,  judicial  and  coercive  powers.  What  would 
be  the  use  of  her  laws,  if  she  had  no  power  of  enforcing 
them  ?  She  is  a  visible  society,  and  therefore  has  not  only 
authority  over  the  souls,  but  power  also  over  the  bodies  of 
men. 

It  is  sad  to  reflect  that  any  ecclesiastical  body  should  put 
forth  such  astounding  claims  and  thus  become  a  terror  to  all 
members  of  the  Church.     I  feel  rather  inclined  to  be  lenient 


Roman  Coercion  and  Infallibility.  143 

than  severe  on  tlie  Clmrch  of  Rome,  but  candour  compels  me 
to  see  her  in  her  true  light.  I  have  no  space  to  enter  into 
details,  but  what  I  assert,  both  in  this  and  my  other  lectures, 
I  can  prove  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt.  The  system  of 
infallibility  logically  leads  Kome  to  be  not  only  the  most 
bigoted,  but  also  the  most  cruel  of  Churches.  And  all  this 
bigotry  and  cruelty  assumes,  in  her  communion,  the  appear- 
ance of  godly  zeal. 

We  know  that  Roman  Catholics  disavow  the  cruelties 
which  taint  the  history  of  their  Church,  and  emphatically 
maintain  that  her  present  attitude  is  altogether  different. 
But  do  they  disclaim  also  the  gift  of  infallibility,  the  coercive 
power,  and  the  supreme  control  over  the  State,  from  which 
all  the  obnoxious  and  repulsive  traits  of  their  Church  flow 
as  the  stream  from  its  source  % 

They  claim  that  the  coercive  power  is  essential  to  infalli- 
bility in  order  to  settle  controversies  of  faith.  We  maintain, 
on  the  contrary,  that  such  a  power  is  rather  prejudicial  to 
that  end. 

When  any  member  is  accused  of  heresy,  the  Church  sum- 
mons him  before  her  tribunal ;  asks  him  if  such  or  such 
doctrines  are  his  ;  commands  him  to  recant  and  submit  him- 
self, without  any  discussion  and  without  hearing  the  proofs 
of  what  is  considered  the  truth ;  and  if  he  refuses,  he  is 
excommunicated  and  sentenced  to  undergo  due  punishment. 
But  the  Church  herself  does  not  pretend  to  execute  the  penal 
sentence.  For  this  purpose  he  is  handed  over  to  the  secular 
power,  called  the  secular  arm  of  the  Church,  which  is  com- 
pelled to  obey  her  behests  and  assist  her  in  the  extirpation 
of  heretics,  under  paia  of  excommunication,  interdict,  or 
deposition.  In  countries  where  the  Church  of  Rome  is  pre- 
dominant,   there   exists   an   intimate    connection    between 


144  Roman  Catholicism, 

Church  and  State,  by  virtue  of  which  the  State  is  the 
executive  power  of  the  Church.  In  such  countries  the  State 
generally  looks  upon  heresy  as  high  treason,  and  treats  the 
heretic  accordingly.  Such  is  the  policy  of  the  Church,  which 
enables  her  to  shirk  responsibility  for  such  cruelties  as  the 
State  may  employ. 

But  she  is  nevertheless  accountable  for  them.  Are  not 
the  officers  of  the  State  her  children  too  ?  If  they  are  such 
willing  tools  as  to  become  the  executive  power  of  the  Church, 
can  they  not  also  be  restrained  by  her  command  ?  Has  she 
no  excommunications  to  fulminate  against  them  for  their 
executive  cruelties  %  Alas,  it  is  the  Church  herself  that  dic- 
tates the  punishment,  directs  its  execution,  inspires  the 
officers  with  cruelty  and  inflames  them  with  hatred  and 
bigotry.  And  as  they  act  at  her  instigation  and  under  her 
influence,  she  is  responsible  for  all  that  they  do.  Church 
and  State  frequently  corrupt  each  other,  in  the  Church  of 
Rome,  by  promoting  mutually  their  own  selfish  interests. 

Now,  can  a  judge  of  controversies  that  uses  such  coercive 
means  settle  them  in  foro  interno  ?  Can  it  be  possible  that 
the  State  as  the  executive  power  of  the  Church  should  eflfect 
what  the  Church  herself  cannot  eflect  ?  Christ  Himself 
excluded  such  means  efiectually  when  He  declared  that 
His  kingdom  was  not  of  this  world,  but  within  us.  Yes, 
"  within  us  ;  "  it  is  obvious  then  that  controversies  must  be 
settled  by  internal  conviction.  Any  other  way  of  adjusting 
them  would  be  contrary  to  the  will  of  the  Great  Head  of  the 
Church.  To  determme  them  by  the  State,  as  the  secular  arm 
of  the  Church's  coercive  power,  makes  her  ipse  facto  a  "king- 
dom of  this  world."  It  is  not  a  sign  oi  infallibility  but  o_ 
weakness,  not  oi  divine  institution,  but  of  human  policy  and 
design ;  not  of  reliance  on  God  but  on  the  power  of  man. 


Roman  Coercion  and  Infallibility.  145 

Such  means,  instead  of  purging  the  Church  of  heresy,  fill 
her  with  hidden  heretics  and  unbelievers.  And  is  not  this 
actually  the  case  %  Can  you  find  any  body  of  Christians  in 
which  there  is  so  great  a  number  of  infidels  as  in  the  Koman 
Catholic  Church  %  They  abound  most  in  countries  where 
coercive  measures  are  most  frequently  resorted  to. 

But  why  did  secular  princes  and  governments  lend  their 
aid  to  this  coercive  power  %  Why  did  they  become  the 
executive  power  of  the  Church  %  Partly  because  they  thought 
by  this  means  to  consolidate  their  own  authority,  but  prin- 
cipally because  they  were  compelled  to  obey  the  commands 
of  the  Church  on  pain  of  being  excommunicated  and  deposed, 
or  of  seeing  their  countries  placed  under  the  ban  of  the 
Church,  should  they  dare  to  disobey.  Rome,  on  account  of 
her  supreme  authority  and  infallibility,  claims  the  power  of 
not  only  excommunicating  but  also  of  deposing  princes  and 
of  punishing  whole  countries  by  depriving  them  of  the  means 
of  grace.  History  affords  us  many  instances  of  the  exercise 
of  this  power  of  deposing  princes  and  of  absolving  their  sub- 
jects  from  the  oath  of  allegiance ;  and  Rome  has  re-asserted, 
in  the  recent  syllabus,  nearly  all  those  obnoxious  powers 
which  the  popes  exercised  in  the  middle  ages  over  princes 
and  governments.  They  are  in  abeyance  at  present,  but 
would  be  employed  if  opportunity  afforded  and  prudence 
permitted  it.  To  what  extremes  will  not  the  claim  to 
infallibility  lead  % 

An  upright  judge  never  avoids  the  light  of  day,  but  rather 
courts  publicity.  But  such  is  not  the  case  with  the  pope  and 
his  prelates.  They  have  a  spy-system  and  a  secret  tribunal — 
the  Inquisition.  For  the  existence  of  such  a  tribunal  they 
require  not  only  the  approbation,  but  also  the  active  co- 
operation of  the  secular  power.  Thanks  to  humanity  and 
10 


146  Roman  Catholicism, 

the  weakened  condition  of  the  temporal  influence  of  the  Papal 
See,  this  institution  cannot  now  indulge  in  its  cruel  and 
heartless  activity.  But  at  the  time  when  the  Church  of 
Eome  had  spiritual  and  temporal  sway  in  the  courts  of 
Europe,  it  existed  universally  wherever  she  predominated. 
There  was  not  a  city,  village,  hamlet,  or  household  to  which 
this  formidable  secret  tribunal  had  not  excess  by  its  spies  or 
secret  emissaries,  and  it  would  again  exert  its  pestilential 
power,  should  the  papacy  ever  regain  its  former  influence. 

The  inquisition  is  acknowledged  to  be  a  practical  part  of 
the  Roman  infallibility-system,  and  would  give  signs  of  its 
former  life,  should  it  appear  prudent  and  feasible.  It  is 
admitted  by  all  Roman  Catholics  that  their  system  is  doc- 
trinally  exclusive  and  intolerant ;  nay,  they  glory  in  this 
exclusiveness.  Now,  as  there  is  no  religious  doctrine  which 
has  not  its  practical  import,  the  Church  of  Rome,  whenever 
and  wherever  she  has  the  power,  must  on  account  of  this 
doctrinal  exclusiveness  become  also  practically  a  persecuting 
Church.  As  a  matter  of  course,  practical  intolerance  cannot 
exist  without  a  secret  tribunal  whose  object  it  is  to  enquire 
into  the  faith  of  the  members  and  judge  those  who  are  sus- 
pected of  heresy. 

Now  let  me  ask  what  kind  of  men  were  and  would  again 
be  the  judges  of  such  a  tribunal,  should  the  Church  of  Rome 
ever  obtain  sufficient  power  to  coerce  in  the  old  way? 
Surely,  the  office  is  a  most  odious  one.  Its  exercise  demands 
the  extinction  of  all  kindly  and  charitable  feelings,  and 
actual  delight  in  extreme  cruelty ;  since  its  objects  are  to 
jfind  out  and  exterminate  heresy,  to  overcome  obstinacy  by 
fearful  tortures,  to  subdue  heretics  by  bodily  sufierings ;  if 
necessary,  to  hang,  quarter  or  burn  them,  and  render  their 
names  infamous  to  future  generations  of  Churchmen.     In  a 


Roman  Coercion  and  Infallibility.  147 

word,  as  the  institution  is  the  offspring  of  bigotry  and  intol- 
erance, its  judges  must  be  the  most  bigoted  and  intolerant 
persons  that  can  be  found.  Men  with  humane  and  Christian 
feelings  would  be  unfit  to  fill  so  odious  an  office.  Judges 
without  g-uile  and  devoid  of  Jesuitical  cunning  could  not  find 
out  the  secret  heresy  of  the  soul.  Liberal-minded  men 
would  scarcely  prevail  upon  heretics  to  recant.  Upright  and 
high-spirited  men  v^^ould  consider  it  beneath  them  to  send 
forth  an  army  of  spies,  to  employ  knaves  to  act  as  torturers 
and  to  conduct  the  whole  judicial  process  in  secrecy  and 
darkness.  Kind-hearted  men  could  not  bring  themselves  to 
witness  the  heart-rending  tortures  of  the  unfortunate  victims. 
History  gives  us  the  character  of  these  inquisitors,  and  it  is 
by  no  means  flattering. 

And  who  are  the  criminals  to  be  judged  and  condemned 
by  this  awful  tribunal  %  Sincere  enquirers  after  truth — ^men 
who,  rather  than  recant,  sufier  willingly,  even  joyfully,  the 
keenest  tortures  and  the  most  cruel  death  as  martyrs  of  the 
truth;  innocent  men  and  women  who  have  been  falsely 
accused  by  their  enemies ;  persons  who  are  obnoxious  to  the 
inquisitors  themselves,  or  to  some  influential  worldly  Church- 
man. Whosoever  even  suspects  a  person  guilty  of  heresy  is 
bound  to  accuse  him,  otherwise  he  is  in  danger  of  being  him- 
self prosecuted  as  an  abettor  of  heresy.  This  dreadful  insti- 
tution is  a  firebrand  thrown  into  the  midst  of  a  kingdom 
— through  every  grade  of  society.  The  husband  is  bound 
to  accuse  his  wife,  and  the  wife  her  husband ;  the  children 
must  inform  against  their  parents,  and  these  against  their 
children;  brothers,  sisters,  and  friends  are  bound  to  accuse 
each  other  before  this  tribunal.  All  sacred  ties  and  connec- 
tions must  be  disregarded  and  torn  asunder  at  the  bidding 
of  the  Holy  Office. 


148  Roman  Catholicism, 

And  the  manner  in  which  the  accused  party  is  judged  is 
most  unjust,  heartless,  and  cruel.  He  does  not  know  who 
his  accusers  are,  nor  is  he  even  told  the  crime  he  is  charged 
with,  in  order  that  if  he  should  be  conscious  to  himself  of 
having  ever  said  or  done  anything  contrary  to  the  faith  with 
which  he  is  not  in  fact  charged,  he  may  unguardedly  disclose 
that,  imagining  it  to  be  the  very  crime  of  which  he  stands 
accused.  He  is  not  allowed  counsel  or  defense.  Any 
lawyer  who  undertook  his  cause  would  incur  excommunica- 
tion. Two  witnesses  are  enough  in  order  to  convict  him ; 
and  even  the  depositions  of  those  whose  testimony  would  not 
be  admitted  in  other  trials,  either  from  personal  enmity  or 
public  infamy,  are  received  as  evidence  by  this  tribunal. 
The  whole  aim  and  object  of  the  judges  is  to  convict  the 
prisoner  at  all  hazards.  For  this  purpose  they  employ  the 
most  subtle  and  cruel  means.  Their  interrogatory  is  cunning 
and  captious.  The  party  accused  is  thrown  into  a  horrid 
dungeon  and  tortured  in  the  most  exquisite  manner,  in  order 
to  elicit  a  confession  of  heresy,  and  often  the  unhappy  vic- 
tim, overcome  with  pain,  makes  a  confession  or  recantation 
of  an  offence  of  which  he  is  not  guilty.  Often  he  succumbs 
under  the  cruel  tortures,  and  so  dies  a  martyr  to  the  truth, 
before  sentence  is  pronounced  on  him.  From  the  sentence 
of  this  tribunal  there  is  no  appeal ',  it  is  final.  The  usual 
sentence  was  death  by  fire,  thus  symbolizing  that  the  heretic 
deserved  the  fire  of  hell. 

"  No  recantation  or  assurance  of  orthodoxy  could  save  the 
accused ;  he  was  allowed  confession,  absolution  and  commu- 
nion, and  his  profession  of  repentance  and  change  of  mind 
was  accepted  in  for o  sacramenti,  but  he  was  told  at  the  same 
time  that  it  would  not  be  accepted  judicially,  and  he  must 
die  as  ii  he  were  a  relapsed  heretic.     Lastly,  tcf  fili  up  the 


Roman  Coercion  and  Infallibility.  149 

measure,  his  innocent  family  was  deprived  of  his  property  by 
legal  confiscation,  half  of  it  passing  into  the  papal  treasury, 
the  other  half  into  the  hands  of  the  inquisitors.  Life  only, 
said  Innocent  III.,  was  to  be  left  to  the  sons  of  misbelievers, 
and  that  as  an  act  of  mercy.  They  were  therefore  made  in- 
capable of  civil  offices  and  dignities."  (The  Pope  and  the 
Council,  by  Janus,  p.  197.) 

"  The  binding  force  of  the  laws  against  heretics  lay  not  in 
the  authority  of  secular  princes,  but  in  the  sovereign  domin- 
ion of  life  and  death  over  all  Christians,  claimed  by  the 
popes  as  God's  representatives  on  earth.  Every  prince  or 
civil  magistrate,  according  to  the  constant  doctrine  of  the  court 
of  Rome,  was  to  be  compelled  simply  to  carry  out  the  sentence 
of  the  inquisitors,  by  the  following  process  :  first,  the  magis- 
trates were  themselves  excommunicated  on  their  refusal,  and 
then  all  who  held  intercourse  with  them.  If  this  was  not 
enough,  the  city  was  laid  under  interdict.  If  resistance  was 
still  prolonged,  the  officials  were  deprived  of  their  posts,  and 
when  all  these  means  were  exhausted,  the  city  was  deprived 
of  intercourse  with  other  cities,  and  its  bishop's  see  remov- 
ed."    {Ibidem,  p.  195.) 

I  have  not  in  the  least  overdrawn  the  picture  which  history 
presents  to  us  of  this  secret  tribunal  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
Any  impartial  student  of  the  records  of  the  Inquisition  will 
confess  that  I  have  drawn  it  rather  lightly.  I  would  rather 
minimize  than  maximize  the  errors  of  Rome.  In  fact,  I 
point  out  only  those  features  of  this  Church  which  either 
constitute  her  very  nature  or  necessarily  follow  from  her 
fundamental  principles.  I  wish  to  describe  her  not  so  much 
as  she  was  but  as  she  is.  I  omit,  therefore,  all  those  enor- 
mous details  of  crime  with  which  her  history  abounds,  and 
with  which  our  controversial  books  are  often  filled. 


150  Roman  Catholicism. 

The  office  of  the  Inquisition  still  exists  in  the  Church, 
although  in  a  modified  form;  to  it  are  referred  the  prohibition 
of  books,  and  all  matters  relating  to  the  suppression  of  here- 
sy. The  principle  is  there;  and  if  time  and  circumstances 
permitted,  there  is  every  reason  to  fear  that  it  would  show 
itself  in  its  former  hateful  character. 

Now,  is  the  existence  of  such  a  dreadful  tribunal  a  mark 
of  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  %  It  is  surely  a  condemna- 
tory mark.  A  Church  that,  on  principle,  coolly  and  deliber- 
ately uses  such  awful  means  in  order  to  settle  controversies  of 
faith,  and  to  stamp  out  heresies,  cannot  possess  the  divine  attri- 
bute of  infallibility.  Will  persons  who  have  felt  the  power 
of  such  a  tribunal  ever  become  convinced  that  it  defends  or 
promotes  the  truth?  Will  they  not  be  forever  lost  to  a 
Church  that  creates  a  hell  on  earth  in  order  to  torture  them 
into  subjection?  Instead  of  producing  humble  and  free  sub- 
mission, can  the  means  which  Rome  employs  produce  any- 
thing but  sullen  obstinacy  ? 

One  of  the  worst  features  in  the  coercive  powers  of  this 
infallible  Church  is  that  she  condemns  to  death  those  who 
difier  from  her  from  motives  of  conscience,  the  secular  power 
being  compelled  to  be  the  executioner  of  the  Church.  Her 
learned  doctors  justify  the  death-penalty  inflicted  on  heretics. 
Thomas  Aquinas,  her  leading  theologian  and  doctor,  who  is 
held  in  so  great  esteem  that  his  Summa  Theologica,  together 
with  the  Bible,  is  placed  on  the  table  in  general  councils, 
where  controversies  of  faith  are  to  be  determined,  lays  down 
this  doctrine  (^Summa  Theologica,  Sec,  quest,  xi.,  art.   3): 

"It  is  much  more  grievous  to  corrupt  faith,  which  is  the 
source  and  life  of  the  soul,  than  to  corrupt  money,  which  only 
tends  to  the  relief  of  the  body.  Hence,  if  coiners  and  other 
malefactors  are  justly  put  to  death  by  the  secular  authority, 


Roman  Coercion  and  Infallibility.  151 

much  more  may  heretics  not  only  be  excommunicated,  ^ut 
even  justly  put  to  death." 

I  shall  not  lose  time  in  refuting  this  monstrous  doctrine. 
I  merely  rqpiark  that  the  analogy  which  Thomas  Aquinas 
attempts  to  draw  is  of  no  value ;  because  in  other  crimes 
external  acts  only  have  to  be  proved,  while  in  order  to  prove 
that  a  person  is  a  heretic  the  conscience  must  be  arraigned. 
It  must  be  proved  that  he  obstinately  resists  what  is  known 
to  him  as  the  truth.  Does  the  Church's  infallibility  extend 
so  far  as  to  search  the  heart  %  How  can  she  know  whether 
he  resists  her  teaching  from  purely  conscientious  motives  or 
from  malice  and  obstinacy  %  If  it  be  evident  to  the  pope  and 
the  bishops  that  they  are  infallible,  are  they  justified  in  sup- 
posing that  this  infallibility  dogma  must  be  evident  to  every- 
body else?  If  a  doctrine  be  believed  by  them  as  true, 
merely  because  they  themselves  hold  it,  must  it  be  believed 
by  everybody  else  for  the  same  reason  1 

Roman  Catholics  themselves  teach  that  the  conscience  is 
the  immediate  rule  of  our  actions,  so  that,  if  anybody  acts 
contrary  to  its  dictates,  he  is  guilty  of  a  breach  of  God's  law- 
Shall  a  person,  then,  betray  his  conscience  by  submitting 
himself  to  an  authority  whose  infallibility  he  does  not  per- 
ceive, and  embrace  doctrines  in  which  he  cannot  conscien- 
tiously believe  ?  The  Church  of  Rome  glaringly  contradicts 
her  own  teaching  on  the  conscience,  by  commanding  absolute 
submission  to  her  teaching  and  by  condemning  even  to  death 
anyone  who  dares  refuse  such  submission.  True ;  a  doctrine 
may  be  condemned  as  heretical,  but  to  condemn  any  person 
as  a  heretic  is  an  almost  impossible  thing ;  it  must  be  left 
to  the  Great  Head  of  the  Chui'ch  who  alone  is  the  searcher 
and  judge  of  hearts.  The  Church  of  Rome  has  too  little  oi 
haply  no  confidence  in  the  protection  of  Christ.     If  a  doctrine 


152  Roman  Catholicism, 

be  from  God,  Christ  will  nourish  it  in  men's  minds,  in  spite 
of  what  pope  or  bishops  may  do  against  it ;  it  will  take  root 
there  and  bring  forth  good  finiit.  If,  on  the  contrary,  it  be 
not  of  God,  it  will  produce  bad  fruit  and  cannot  permanently 
exist. 

The  Church  of  Rome  endeavours  to  make  the  Church  of 
Christ  a  kingdom  of  this  world  ;  hence  she  is  compelled  to 
use  temporal  means,  even  to  the  penalty  of  death,  in  order 
to  sustain  her  dominion.  And  as  it  is  impossible  to  ascer- 
tain whether  a  person  be  really  a  heretic,  he  is  condemned 
merely  on  suspicion  of  heresy.  Alas  !  to  what  uncharitable 
consequences  their  horrid  bigotry  leads  them  !  The  system 
of  infallibility  makes  them  readily  suspect  errors  and  heresies 
where  they  do  not  in  fact  exist.  If,  for  instance,  their 
stereotyped,  antiquated,  and  unintelligible  jargon  be  not  em- 
ployed by  any  of  their  teachers  or  members,  but  the  doctrine 
is  explained  in  language  that  brings  it  home  to  the  under- 
standing and  conscience  of  the  hearer  or  reader,  he  is  sus- 
pected of  heresy.  They  have  similar  suspicions  of  those 
writers  and  teachers  who  adapt  themselves  to  the  progressive 
spirit  of  the  age.  If  any  one  makes  discoveries  of  important 
truths  unknown  to  past  ages,  as  Galileo  and  others  did,  he  is 
suspected  of  heresy.  They  look  with  the  same  disfavour 
upon  any  one  of  their  members  who  is  liberal  in  his  views 
and  sentiments  towards  those  who  differ  from  his  Church, 
and  who,  in  the  spirit  of  charity,  excuses  them  and  regards 
them  as  true  and  sincere  Christians.  If  any  one  makes  light 
of  superstitious  rites  which  the  Church  herself  has  not  made 
universal,  he  is  suspected  of  heresy. 

There  was  a  time  when  the  mere  suspicion  of  heresy  was  a 
sufficient  reason  for  throwing  a  person  into  the  dungeons  of 
the  Inquisition,  and  woe  to  him  if  he  were  once  confined  within 


Roman  Coercion  and  Infallibility.  153 

the  walls  of  that  dreadful  institution.  Many  a  one  entered 
there ;  but  few  ever  came  out  again.  Tortures,  excommuni- 
cation, and  death  were  their  lot.  What  was  once  the  case 
might  happen  again,  if  the  Church  regained  her  full  spiritual 
and  temporal  sway  ;  for  these  persecutions  and  cruelties  were 
not  pure  accidents  but  were  perpetrated  on  principle. 
They  are  the  practical  outcome  of  her  doctrine  that  she  is  an 
infallible  spiritual  despot,  having  supreme  supervision 
and  control  over  the  laws  of  the  State,  and  authority  to  enlist 
its  aid  as  the  executive  branch  of  her  coercive  power.  True, 
these  horrible  doctrines  are  kept  out  of  sight  in  mixed  com- 
munities, but  they  were  and  are  still,  even  in  our  time, 
carried  out  in  countries  where  Eoman  bigotry  and  exclu- 
siveness  have  unrestrained  power.  They  have  been  taught 
ex  cathedra  by  a  number  of  popes  and  accepted  by  the  whole 
hierarchy ;  and  they  are  the  legitimate  consequence  of  their 
doctrine  of  infallibility  in  controversies  of  faith.  Infalli- 
bility, in  theory,  may  sound  very  sweet  to  anxious  enquirers 
after  truth,  but  infallibility,  in  'practice  and  sober  reality,  is 
truly  a  monstrous  thing. 

Have  Roman  Catholics,  therefore,  any  reason  to  complain 
if  we  look  upon  their  Church  with  suspicion  and  distrust  % 
Are  not  her  awful  claims  and  the  records  of  her  past  history 
calculated  to  fill  us  with  apprehension  and  dismay  %  Can 
we  forget  the  fearful  lessons  her  annals  teach  us  %  Where 
in  all  Christendom  has  there  ever  been  a  Church,  whose 
record  is  so  blood-stained  as  that  of  the  Church  of  Rome  % 
In  what  Church  is  bigoted  exclusiveness  a  virtue,  and  the 
persecuting  spirit  a  sign  of  meritorious  zeal,  save  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  %  Oh,  men  and  brethren,  would  to  God, 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  might  descend  on  that  Church  and  remove 


154  Roman  Catholicism, 

the  fearful  stumbling-block  of  papal  and  hierarcMcal  infalli- 
bility, building  her  anew  "  on  the  foundation  of  the  Apos- 
tles and  prophets,  Christ  Himself  being  the  chief  corner- 
stone ! " 


LECTUEE   III. 

INFALLIBILITY  NOT  THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  UNITY  IN  THE 
CHUROH  OF  ROME. 

ROMAN  Catholics  boast  of  the  unity  of  their  Church 
which  consists  in  the  blind  and  absolute  subjection  of 
the  laity  to  the  clergy,  of  the  clergy  to  the  bishops,  and  of  all 
to  the  pope.  They  teach  that  this  unity  is  produced  by  a 
central  principle  which  cements  all  the  members  into  one  com- 
pact body,  and  that  this  principle  of  unity  is  the  infallible 
authority  of  the  pope  and  the  bishops.  Their  maxim  is,  that 
without  infallibility  there  cannot  be  unity.  Let  us  consider, 
in  this  lecture,  this  boasted  Roman  Catholic  unity  and  see 
what  it  amounts  to  in  reality. 

As  we  have  proved  before,  the  Church  of  Rome  does  not 
bear  externally  the  marks  of  infallibility  ;  they  themselves 
admit  that  this  prerogative  of  the  Church  has  to  be  proved  by 
a  long  and  intricate  process  of  critical  reasoning,  of  which  only 
their  learned  divines  are  capable.  Now,  we  maintain  that 
the  mere  authority  of  a  Church  whose  claims  to  infallibility 
are  not  self-evident  is  not  a  means  of  preserving  unity. 

We  admit  that  the  "  ipse  dixit "  of  the  teacher  is  a  suffi- 
cient and  convincing  argument  for  pupils  whose  minds 
are  undeveloped  and  unaccustomed  to  think.  But 
when    they    begin  to    think    and   reflect    for  themselves, 


156  Roman  Catholicism, 

they  discover  that  the  teacher  is  a  man  like  them- 
selves and  that  truth  is  not  all  concentrated  in  him; 
in  a  word,  that  he  does  not  show  incontrovertible  signs  of 
being  endowed  with  inerrancy.  Having  arrived  at  that  con- 
clusion, they  no  longer  believe  everything  that  he  asserts, 
unless  he  submits  valid  arguments  for  it ;  and  if  they  do  not 
see  as  he  sees,  they  do  not  think  it  any  harm  to  differ  from 
him. 

It  is  the  same  with  the  teaching  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
Those  who  are  uncultivated  and  ignorant  and  have  no  minds 
of  their  own  may  be  easily  led  by  her  and  induced  to  swear 
by  the  "  i'pse  dixit "  of  the  pope  and  his  bishops,  as  unde- 
veloped pupils  are  led  by  the  mere  authority  of  their  teacher. 

Hence  the  invariable  policy  of  this  body,  wherever  they 
have  full  sway,  consists  in  keeping  the  people  in  ignorance. 
Never  was  the  papacy  higher  and  firmer  on  its  throne  than 
in  the  middle  ages,  when  all  the  learning  was  confined  to  the 
priesthood,  and  the  people  were  steeped  in  the  grossest  ignor- 
ance. Nowhere  is  Rome  more  predominant  now  than  in 
countries  where  popular  education  lies  prostrate.  Nay,  in 
Roman  Catholic  times  and  in  purely  Roman  Catholic  coun- 
tries the  education  of  the  masses  is  a  thing  unheard  of  and 
discouraged  in  every  possible  way.  Show  me  a  Roman 
Catholic  country  where  popular  instruction  is  promoted. 
You  cannot ;  it  would  militate  against  their  infallibility- 
system.  Whatever  feeble  efforts  they  have  made  in  modern 
times  towards  educating  the  masses  have  been  forced  upon 
them  by  the  onward  march  of  that  Protestant  civilization 
which  lies  round  about  them. 

It  would  appear  that  by  faith  they  must  understand  a 
pious  credulity  which  takes  for  granted  everything 
that  their  clergy  tell  them.     Surely,  true  faith  is  enlighten- 


Infallibility  Not  the  Principle  of  Unity.      157 

ment,  pre-supposes  and  produces  enlightenment.  Hence 
Christ  came  into  the  world  when  the  Roman  empire  with 
its  high  Greek  civilization  had  sufficiently  prepared  man- 
kind to  receive  the  enlightened  faith  of  Christianity.  This 
could  not  have  been  effected  in  the  midst  of  ignorance ;  for 
ignorance 'is  the  mother  of  credulity  and  superstition. 

Whenever  the  Church  of  Rome  is  unable  to  stem  the  cur- 
rent of  modern  progress  and  to  resist  any  longer  the  demand 
for  public  schools,  she  cannot  avoid  following  suit  and  reluc- 
tantly yields  to  the  inevitable,  in  order  to  maintain  her  own  ; 
but  she  is  not  content  unless  she  has  the  youth  under  her 
immediate  direction  and  control,  so  that  she  may  prescribe  the 
quantity  and  quality  of  teaching  to  be  administered.  Again 
and  again  have  the  Roman  pontiffs  issued  decrees  against  all 
popular  education  not  controlled  by  the  priesthood.  Again 
and  again  have  they  solemnly  declared  that  the  civil  power 
has  no  authority  whatever  to  establish  public  schools,  to  in- 
terfere with  the  discipline  or  the  arrangement  of  studies,  and 
to  examine  and  license  the  teachers.  Again  and  again  have 
they  threatened  with  the  censures  of  the  Church  those  parents 
who,  contrary  to  the  will  of  their  priests,  dare  to  send  their 
children  to  public  schools  established  by  the  State.  I 
need  refer  you  only  to  the  recent  syllabus  where  these  as- 
sumptions are  promulgated  to  the  whole  world.  We  all 
know  with  what  bitter  animosity  the  Roman  Catholic  school 
question  is  discussed  and  fought  over  in  all  countries  where 
the  State,  intent  to  rescue  the  masses  from  the  gulf  of  ignorance 
and  degradation,  establishes  a  feasible  and  practical  system  of 
popular  education. 

It  is  not  love  for  the  masses  that  prompts  the  hierarchs 
to  yield  to  the  clamour  for  popular  education ;  nor  is  it  a 
disinterested  and  unalloyed  love  of  the  truth  vvnich  produces 


158  Roman  Catholicism. 

their  agitation  for  separate  schools,  wherever  they  cannot  ob- 
tain the  entire  control  of  the  educational  system  ;  but  they 
are  afraid  that  they  may  lose  their  hold  on  the  minds  and 
consciences  of  their  people,  if  they  allow  their  children  to  be 
educated  in  any  other  than  the  infallibility-groove,  and  to 
have  their  minds  and  characters  formed  in  an  atmosphere 
where  the  impartial  truth,  and  not  the  all-overshadowing 
doctrine  of  Church-infallibility,  forms  the  chief  element. 
They  must  be  taught  to  view  everything  with  the  eyes 
of  the  Koman  hierarchy  ;  the}?-  must  be  kept  in  ignorance  of 
certain  truths,  especially  in  history,  the  knowledge  of  which 
would  alienate  them  from  the  Church,  They  might  become 
too  wise,  become  imbued  with  what  Protestants  call  the 
spirit  of  impartial  enquiry  and  liberty  of  conscience,  and 
swear  no  longer  by  the  "  ipse  dixit "  of  the  Church.  Nay, 
they  are  apprehensive  that  even  the  intercourse  of  their 
children  with  those  of  their  Protestant  neighbours  may 
weaken  and  imperceptibly  eradicate  their  docile  faith  in  the 
tenets  of  the  Koman  Church.  Hence  they  must  be  kept  re- 
moved as  far  as  possible  from  contaminating  contact  with 
Protestant  children.  In  a  word,  they  are  trained  to  move 
and  live  in  a  world  of  their  own. 

It  is  admitted  by  all  who  have  enquired  into  the  matter, 
that  the  secular  education  imparted  in  Roman  Catholic 
separate  schools  is  inferior  to  that  given  in  the  public 
schools.  Hence  they  are  unable  to  compete  with  Protes- 
tants in  educational  efficiency.  Their  lay  teachers  are  gene- 
rally of  inferior  attainments,  since  as  a  rule  they  are  not  so 
well  paid  as  their  professional  brethren  in  the  public  schools. 
Wherever  possible,  both  for  economical  and  other  reasons, 
they  employ  nuns  or  monks  who  are  altogether  ignorant  of 
the  acquirements  suitable  for  their  pupils  in  practical  life, 


Infallibility  Not  the  Principle  of  Unity.      159 

and  in  their  combat  with,  and  advancement  in  the  world. 
What  a  pity  that  the  pope  and  the  bishops  should  thus  de- 
prive their  innocent  and  confiding  people  of  so  many  temporal 
advantages,  merely  in  order  that  they  may  be  enabled  to 
maintain  their  own  supremacy  over  them  % 

But  they  say  it  is  a  love  of  religious  education  and  training 
that  induces  them  to  establish  separate  schools.  We  answer 
that  we  know,  both  from  experience  and  observation,  that  the 
children  receive  precious  little  of  this  religious  training,  even 
of  the  Roman  stamp,  in  these  schools.  How  seldom  do  the 
priests  themselves  visit  them  and  teach  therein.  The  fact  is, 
they  have  either  no  time  or  are  indifferent  to  the  religious 
instruction  of  the  children.  And  the  teachers,  are  they 
able  %  and  how  much  religious  instruction  do  they  actually 
impart  %  So  far  as  religious  knowledge  is  concerned,  Roman 
Catholic  day  and  Sunday  schools  compare  unfavourably  with 
Protestant  religious  training,  imperfect  as  we  confess  that  to 
be  in  its  present  state. 

Why,  then,  this  great  ado  amongst  Roman  Catholics  about 
having  the  control  of  popular  education  %  For  no  other 
reason  but  to  keep  the  rising  generation  within,  the  pale 
of  their  Church.  Mere  external  authority  is  their  principle 
of  unity ;  therefore  the  people  must  be  kept  in  a  state  of 
mental  bondage. 

Those  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome  who  become  en- 
lightned  by  education  adhere  only  in  a  very  loose  way  to  the 
principle  of  authority.  They  admit  the  creeds  and  decisions 
of  the  hierarchy,  because  their  enquiries  have  led  them  to  be- 
lieve that  the  doctrines  are  founded  on  other  reasons  than 
the  mere  authority  of  the  Church.  You  hear  the  enlightened 
Roman  Catholic  sometimes  express  himself  as  being  a 
"  Catholic  from  frinciiole,"  or  a  "  Catholic  from  convictiooi" 


160  Roman  Catholicism. 

by  which  he  means  to  say  that  he  believes  the  doctrines  of 
his  Church,  not  merely  because  the  Church  holds  and 
teaches  them,  but  because  he  thinks  that  he  has  other  proofs 
which  convince  him  of  their  truth.  He  would  believe  the 
same  doctrines,  although  the  episcopal  body  had  not  defined 
them.  It  is,  therefore,  not  the  principle  of  mere  authority 
which  keeps  him  within  the  Church.  This  is,  so  far  as  the 
enlightened  member  is  concerned,  an  unnecessary  principle 
of  unity.  Whatever  therefore  Roman  Catholics  may  say  to 
the  contrary,  ecclesiastical  infallibility  is  not  necessary  for 
the  unity  of  faith. 

But  there  are  other  members,  who  when  they  become  en- 
lightened, perceive  not  only  that  the  Church  has  no  external 
marks  giving  her  a  claim  to  infallibility,  but  that  she  has 
actually  erred,  and  that  her  religious  professions  prove  her  to 
be  fallible.  Mere  authority  has  never  been  sufficient  to  keep 
such  men  in  the  unity  of  the  faith. 

To  escape  this  danger  the  Church  of  Rome  has  always 
jealously  striven  to  bring  all  higher  education  and  the  teaching 
of  the  universities  also  under  her  control.  She  cannot  possibly 
hinder  the  education  of  the  higher  and  wealthier  classes,  but 
she  must  have  it  under  her  direction,  so  that  she  may  im- 
press on  the  minds  of  the  students  such  principles  only  as 
will  admit  of  no  hostile  developments  against  herself.  The 
professors,  teaching  in  these  higher  institutions  of  learning, 
are  required  to  take  an  oath  that  they  will  not  teach  anything 
that  will  in  the  least  degree  be  injurious  to  the  Church's 
authority;  it  is  insisted  that  such  views  should  be  incul- 
cated as  will  set  it  on  a  plausible  basis.  All  the  sciences  are 
required  to  be  subordinated  to  the  teachmg  of  the  infallible 
Church.  They  have  a  kind  of  metaphysics  that  dovetails  in 
with  theii'  theology.       A  free  and  untnimmeled  exercise  of 


Infallibility  Not  the  Principle  of  Unity,       161 

their  reasoning  powers  and  of  sound  common  sense  would 
soon  lead  the  proficients  in  higher  learning  to  the  conclusion 
that  they  ought  not  to  be  credulous  any  longer.  But  it 
generally  happens  that  they  are  kept  in  the  Church,  not  in- 
deed by  mere  authority,  but  misguided  by  deceptive  philoso- 
phical formulas  from  which  they  make  logical  deduc- 
tions in  favour  of  the  tenets  of  the  Church  and  thus  think 
that  they  are  ''  Catholics  on  principle." 

We  may,  therefore,  safely  conclude  that  it  is  not  the  sup- 
posed infallible  authority  of  the  hierarchy  which  keeps  its 
members  in  the  unity  of  the  faith. 

Again,  we  contend  that,  if  ecclesiastical  infallibility  were 
necessary  for  the  unity  of  faith,  it  should  have  the  power  of 
preventing  disunion.  In  every  institution,  the  provisions  for 
preventing  disruption  are  of  great  importance  and  manifest 
a  great  deal  of  wisdom  and  forethought.  Now,  in  the 
Church  of  Eome,  this  very  claim  to  infallibility  seems  to  be 
a  cause  of  disunion.  This  will  appear  evident  if  you  reflect 
that  it  makes  the  Church  stationary  and  unyielding. 
She  is  bound,  on  account  of  this  claim,  to  hold  and 
to  maintain  for  ever  what  she  has  once  decreed  and  defined 
in  matters  of  faith  and  morals  ;  and,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
this  conservatism  has  given  her  the  habit  of  being  stiff  and 
inelastic  also  in  disciplinary  and  merely  accidental  or  secon- 
dary points. 

Humanity,  on  the  other  hand,  is  always  marching  onward. 
The  Church  sees  in  this  progressive  spirit  of  society  nothing 
but  evil.  She  tries  hard  to  keep  it  back  by  putting  a  tight 
rein  on  it  and  tying  it  down.  Instead  of  placing  herself  at 
the  head  of  true  progress  and  directing  it  in  the  right  channel, 
she  is  continually  found  in  antagonism  to  it,  trying  to  destroy 
it,  or  at  least  to  check  it  as  much  us  possible.     Hence,  pro- 

11 


162  Roman  Catholicism. 

gressive  humanity,  led  by  the  God  of  History,  instead  of 
remaining  with  her,  tears  itself  adrift  from  her ;  and  it  would 
be  well  with  it,  if  it  followed  Christ's  religion  contained  in  His 
inspired  Word,  which  allows  free  development  and  sanctions 
true  progress.  It  would  appear  that  it  was  not  so  much 
opposition  to  doctrinal  and  dogmatical  points  which  was  the 
primary  occasion  of  severing  whole  nations  from  the 
Roman  communion ;  but  they  were  compelled  to  emancipate 
themselves  from  the  control  of  the  hierarchy  on  account  of  its 
hatred  of  social  progress,  of  its  retarding  spirit  and  dull 
obscurantism.  The  Church  of  Kome,  while  pretending  to  be 
peculiarly  adapted  to  the  exigencies  of  human  nature,  fails 
to  recognize  one  of  its  essential  elements,  blindly  ignoring 
the  signs  of  the  times.  A  Church  that  does  not  know  how 
to  judge  and  estimate  the  progressive  movements  of  society, 
and  how  to  take  her  part  in  leading  them  to  a  fi-uitful  issue, 
cannot  possibly  preserve  the  unity  of  Christendom.  Now 
and  then  society  will  be  in  the  van  and  ahead  of  her  in  pro- 
gressive knowledge  and  aspiration.  It  cannot  then  be  driven 
back ;  the  Church  is  left  behind,  and  a  separation  will  be  the 
inevitable  result.  The  student  of  history  will  find  that  this 
obscurantism  of  the  hierarchy  was  the  real  cause  of  the  great 
religious  movement  of  the  sixteenth  century,  by  which  Rome 
lost  the  half  of  Europe.  The  West  of  Europe,  by  its  contact 
with  Greeks  and  Arabs  in  the  East,  had  acquired  new  ideas 
which  fermented  in  society  and  opened  new  avenues  of  pro- 
gress. Rome  did  not  understand  this  spirit,  and  therefore, 
could  not  direct  it.  God,  in  His  all- wise  guidance,  drew  the 
nations  towards  the  source  of  all  true  progress — the  Bible. 
Society,  with  the  Bible  in  hand  for  its  guide,  need  have  no 
fear  of  being  driven  back,  but  may  advance  with  safety  as 
much  as  it  likes. 


Infallibility  Not  the  Principle  of  Unity.      163 

A  body  of  ecclesiastical  rulers  and  dignitaries  claiming 
infallibility,  filled  with  too  high  notions  of  their  position, 
connected  by  no  endearing  ties  with  the  common  interests  of 
their  fellow-men,  and  keeping  themselves  aloof  and  separate 
from  society  in  order  to  attract  and  maintain  a  certain 
superior  and  mystical  respect,  in  a  word,  a  priestly  caste, 
which  in  reality  constitutes  the  Church  of  Rome,  cannot  pos- 
sibly understand  the  wants  of  society  and  be  the  promoter  of 
great  social  movements,  because  it  is  too  tenacioasly  con- 
servative of  the  old  state  of  things.  In  placing  itself  at  the 
head  of  progress  and  wishing  it  God  speed,  it  would  be  in 
danger  of  surrendering  or  imperiling  its  infallibility. '  It  is 
evident  that  a  body  that  does  not  understand  the  signs  of  the 
times,  although  it  may  loudly  claim  infallibility,  cannot 
preserve  the  unity  of  its  flock,  but  must  needs  drive  away 
many  of  its  best  sons,  and  with  them  whole  multitudes  of 
others. 

What  took  place  in  the  sixteenth  century  and  at  other 
times  is  the  case  in  our  own  day.  Why  those  agitations  in 
all  Roman  Catholic  countries  %  Why  that  conflict  we  are 
witnessing  everjrwhere  between  the  Roman  Catholic  laity 
and  clergy,  between  Church  and  State  %  Because  the  pope 
and  his  bishops  are  endeavouring  to  pull  back  the  car  of 
social  progress.  Pius  IX.  has  solemnly  condemned  all  the 
principles  of  modern  civilization  and  declared  that  he  can 
never  be  reconciled  to  them.  Every  existing  constitution  in 
Europe,  with  the  exception  of  the  Russian,  is  an  outgrowth 
of  this  modern  civilization  ;  Rome  is  in  antagonism  with  it. 
She  considers  modern  constitutionalism,  liberty  of  conscience, 
religious  toleration,  free  speech,  a  free  press,  popular  education, 
the  equality  of  all  before  the  law,  and  all  the  other  liberties 
which  form  the  basis  of  our  social  machinery  as  so  many 


164  Roman  Catholicism. 

damnable  errors.  No  ;  Rome  does  not  understand  the  nature 
and  aspirations  of  our  modern  social  life,  and  therefore  she  has 
already  lost  the  affections  of  many,  and  however  unwilling 
nations  may  be  to  change  their  religion,  she  constrains  them, 
by  her  obstinate  and  obscurantist  policy,  to  oppose  her  and 
finally  to  separate  themselves  from  her.  They  cannot  but 
perceive  that  a  Church  which  is  constantly  attempting  to  check 
the  current  of  their  social  progress  cannot  be  the  Church  of 
Christ.  Therefore  the  Koman  hierarchy  cannot  be  that 
infallible  body  which  is  adapted  to  keep  the  nations  together 
in  religious  unity. 

This  will  appear  still  more  evident  if  we  reflect  that  their 
system  of  infallibility  is  so  cumbersome  that  disruption  can- 
not be  prevented  for  any  length  time.  Formerly,  before  the 
Vatican  council,  infallibility  was  believed  to  reside  in  the 
voice,  not  of  one  bishop  alone,  nor  of  a  number  of  bishops, 
but  of  the  whole  episcopal  body.  The  consequence  was  that 
the  remedy  of  an  infallible  decision  could  not  be  applied 
before  the  disease  had  advanced  too  far.  How  could  it  be 
possible  to  secure  in  time  the  infallible  voice  of  the  collective 
episcopal  body  ?  Before  it  could  be  heard,  a  complete  and 
permanent  disunion  had  already  taken  place.  When  a  con- 
troversy of  faith  arose  in  any  country,  the  bishops  of  that 
country  generally  met  and  condemned  those  who  differed 
from  them,  but  their  definition  and  condemnation  could  not 
definitively  settle  the  controversy,  or  restore  unity,  because 
infallibility  was  wanting.  Both  parties,  therefore,  claimed  a 
right  to  their  opinions.  The  case  was  brought  before  the  pope; 
but  his  infallibility  was  not  an  article  of  faith.  To  be 
cautious,  therefore,  and  to  use  every  human  means  in  order 
not  to  commit  himself  was  his  best  policy.  He  prudently 
took  time  for  consideration,  watching  and  waiting  to  see 


Infallibility  Not  the  Principle  of  Unity,       165  * 

what  turn  events  would  take.  The  controversy,  in  the  mean- 
time, was  allowed  to  rage  on  from  year  to  year,  until  the 
controverted  doctrine  had  been  completely  established  and 
taken  root  in  a  body  that  separated  from  the  Church,  and 
it  was  too  late  to  repair  the  mischief.  Yet  it  was  not  until 
then  that  the  pope  issued  his  Bull  of  condemnation  and  ex- 
communication But  to  what  purpose  %  As  he  had  not  yet 
been  declared  personally  infallible,  it  was  not  only  too  late,  but 
had  no  infallible  authority  even  then.  The  question, 
therefore,  remained  still  undetermined,  even  for  Roman 
Catholics  themselves.  The  pope  had  nothing  for  it  but 
either  to  write  to  all  the  bishops  in  order  to  ascertain  the 
universal  faith  of  the  Church,  or  else  to  summon  a  general 
council.  Both  methods  of  ascertaining  the  faith  of  the 
episcopal  body  were  troublesome,  slow  and  expensive  and 
could  only  come  to  an  end  long  after  complete  disunion  had 
taken  place,  and  when  a  recall  to  the  one  fold  was  of  no  avail. 
Thus  the  council  of  Trent  was  held  long  after  Protestantism 
had  become  a  deep-rooted  fact.  Therefore  the  system  of 
infallibility  has  never  been  a  practical  means  in  the  Church  of 
Rome  of  preventing  in  a  rational  and  effective  manner  dis- 
agreement on  matters  of  faith. 

And  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  Vatican  decree  declaring  the 
personal  infallibility  of  the  pope  will  mend  matters.  There 
is  now  complete  centralization,  all  settlements  of  disputed 
questions  depending  on  the  official  utterances  of  an  old  man. 
We  fail  to  perceive  how  he  can  bring  controversies  within 
the  Church  to  a  speedier  issue,  having  now  the  whole  weight 
of  the  burden  and  its  awful  responsibility  on  his  own  shoulders. 
How  can  he,  overwhelmed  by  the  multiplicity  of  his  other 
cares,  settle  controversies  of  faith,  in  all  parts  of  the  world, 
in  time  to  prevent  disruption  ?     This  very  centralization  of 


166  Roman  Catholicism. 

infallibility  is  an  inevitable  cause  of  further  misunderstand- 
ing and  delay. 

There  is  another  strong  reason  why  the  system  of  Church- 
infallibility  is  powerless  to  preserve  the  unity  of  faith.  The 
principle  of  union  should  be  active  and  promote  the  inner  life 
of  man.  Men  cannot  be  united  in  faith  which  is  the  life  of 
the  soul,  unless  the  principle  of  unity  in  faith  promotes  this 
subjective  vitality.  We  see  clearly  that  the  Bible  and  the 
Spirit  of  God  possess  this  inherent  potency.  Hence  whatever 
external  differences  may  be  found  in  evangelical  Christendom, 
there  is  energy  and  activity  there,  not  resulting  in  disunion, 
properly  so  called,  but  in  displaying  the  vital  unity  of  faith 
which  stirs  within  them.  It  is  not  thus  with  the  Church  of 
Rome.  There  is  no  life  in  their  unity ;  all  is  stagnation  in 
the  slough  of  ecclesiastical  infallibility.  Individual  effort  in 
matters  of  faith  is  out  of  place  in  their  system,  since  no  man 
dares  to  think  for  himself.  It  is  the  hierarchy  which  decides 
for  all  in  general,  and  for  every  one  in  particular,  for  the 
layman  as  well  as  the  clergyman,  the  individual  bishop  as 
well  as  the  priest.  Now,  if  they  be  let  alone  for  a  length  of 
time,  ^.  e.,  supposing  there  be  no  disturbance  of  their  peace 
for  a  long  period,  as  happened  in  the  middle  ages  ;  the  result 
will  be  unbroken  slumber — deathly  lethargy  in  matters  of 
faith.  The  salvation  of  each  individual  is  in  the  hands  of 
others ;  he  has  no  need  to  trouble  himself  about  it.  His 
whole  inner  life  remains  in  a  state  of  torpor,  so  far  as  spirit- 
uality is  concerned.  In  this  stagnant  state  of  a  religious  com- 
munity every  vice  must  soon  take  root  and  flourish  ;  the  seeds 
of  corruption  and  decay  will  speedily  ripen  and  mature  at 
the  expense  of  the  soil  by  which  they  have  been  fed.  Thus 
in  the  middle  ages  all  were  resting  in  undisturbed  repose,  on 
the  ecclesiastical  infallibility  of  the  Church  of  Home.    It  was 


Infallibility  Not  the  Principle  of  Unity.       iu7 

then  tliat  ignorance  and  vice  predominated,  and  tlie  germs  of 
disunion  soon  began  to  develop  themselves  and  bring 
forth  fruit.  It  was  then  that  several  anti-popes  claimed  the 
papal  chair,  each  of  whom  had  numerous  followers.  It  was 
then  that  the  great  schism  existed  in  the  Church  for  two 
generations,  which  was  put  an  end  to  by  the  council  of  Con- 
stance. The  Church  had  become  so  corrupt  that  even  the 
bishops  themselves  acknowledged  the  necessity  of  a  reforma- 
tion both  in  the  head  and  members  of  the  Church.  And 
this  reformation  could  not  be  brought  about,  even  in  the  six- 
teenth century,  except  by  direct  revolt  from  the  infallibility 
system.  Thus  Home  lost  millions  of  adherents  whom,  if  her 
infallibility  doctrine  were  of  practical  utility,  she  should  have 
kept  in  the  unity  of  faith. 

All  this  leads  us  to  the  conclusion  that,  if  there  is  a 
measure  of  unity  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  it  is  not  the  system 
of  hierarchical  infallibility  that  secures  it.  We  do  not  deny 
that  true  Christians  among  them  are  united  in  the  bond  of 
faith  hy  the  truths  of  the  Bible  ;  but  this  is  not  the  unity 
which  is  distinctively  claimed  for  the  Church  of  Rome.  There 
are  other  external  and  human  reasons  which  give  to  that 
Church  the  semblance  of  unity  she  manifests  to  the  world, 
but  I  cannot  enter  fully  here  into  those  reasons.  On  the  one 
hand,  it  is  the  esprit  de  corjjs  and  the  powerful  self-interest 
of  the  higher  clergy  which  unite  them  in  a  well-organized 
phalanx ;  and  on  the  other,  it  is  the  influence  which  the 
bishops  know  but  too  well  how  to  exercise  over  the  people 
which  keeps  the  latter  within  the  pale  of  the  Church  and 
cemented  together  by  clerical  domination  and  sacramenta- 
rian  superstition. 

But,  after  all,  there  is  not  that  unity  in  the  Church  of 
Rome  oi  which  they  boast  so  much  when  they  argue  against 


168  Roman  Catholicism. 

Protestants;  on  the  contrary  there  are  many  divisions 
among  them.  In  the  first  place,  they  have  more  than  one 
form  of  worship.  There  are  different  rites  in  their  Church, 
such  as  the  Latin,  Greek,  Armenian,  Coptic,  Maronite, 
Syriac,  Greek  Melchitic,  Chaldsean,  Ethiopian,  Ruthenian, 
Bulgaric,  &c.  In  fact,  the  members  of  every  Eastern  nation 
that  has  re-united  with  Eome  possess  their  own  liturgy. 
The  most  widely-spread  rite  is  the  Latin,  which  has  also  its 
peculiar  differences  as  between  the  various  nations  in  which 
it  prevails.  But  there  are  not  only  variations  of  rites,  but 
also  of  discipline  in  the  Churches  denominated  after  the 
different  rites.  Protestants  cannot  differ  more  widely  in 
discipline  and  form  of  worship  than  Roman  Catholics  do. 
Now,  we  do  not  blame  the  Church  of  Eome  for  these  differ- 
ences ;  we  rather  praise  her  for  allowing  them.  What  we 
desire  is  that  they  should  not  reproach  us  with  our  liturgical 
and  disciplinary  controversies.  It  is  not  these  that  consti- 
tute the  divisions  of  Protestantism,  but  the  spirit  of  jealousy 
and  exclusiveness  that  some  of  us  have  inherited  from  Rome, 
and  which  seems  to  be  an  ingredient  of  corrupt  human 
nature.  We  regret  to  have  to  admit  that  there  exists  a 
Protestant  popery  often  as  virulent  and  intolerant  ag  the 
Roman  papacy,  and  whatever  division  and  uncharitableness 
there  is  among  us  arises  from  this  cursed  popery  of  our  own 
nature. 

Yet  after  all,  I  believe  that  there  is  as  much,  if  not  more, 
hatred  and  disunion  amongst  the  various  rites  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  than  there  is  between  the  different  Protest- 
ant denominations.  In  the  Church  of  Rome,  those  who  are 
born  in  one  rite  are  not  allowed  to  become  members  of  the 
Church  of  another  rite,  or  even  to  participate  in  its  ministra- 
tions.    Thus  a  member  of  the  Latin  Church  is  not  permitted 


Infallibility  Not  the  Principle  of  Unity.       169 

to  join  any  of  the  Eastern  rites,  or  to  take  holy  orders 
therein,  and  mce  versa.  It  is,  moreover,  a  known  fact  that 
the  Christians  of  one  rite  do  not  regard  favourably  those 
of  another  rite ;  they  look  upon  one  another  as  being  in  error, 
or  as  verging  upon  heresy,  if  not  actually  heretics.  The 
union  of  the  Eastern  rites  with  the  pope,  the  patriarch  oJ 
the  Latin  rite,  is  very  slight,  and  on  the  least  provocation 
they  would  break  off  communion  with  him.  He  has  to  ad 
very  warily  with  them,  tolerating  many  things  that  he  would 
punish  with  the  heaviest  penalties  in  the  Latin  Church. 
His  authority  over  them  is  rather  nominal  than  real,  and 
there  appears  to  be  a  looser  unity  there  than  among  us  Pro 
testants.  Even  if  we  confine  our  observations  to  the  Latin 
Churches  alone,  as  principally  known  to  us,  we  find  as  many 
religious  jealousies  and  animosities  among  them  as  among 
the  different  Protestant  Churches.  We  know  that  there  is 
not  much  love  lost,  on  this  continent  at  any  rate,  between 
the  Irish,  French,  and  German  Roman  Catholics,  But  we 
shall  not  enter  into  their  quarrels.  Of  course,  the  divisions 
arising  from  national  jealousies  and  animosities  do  not  destroy 
the  unity  of  faith,  and  ours  amount  to  nothing  more  than 
theii'S.  We  are  both  deserving  of  blame  for  allowing  our 
corrupt  nature  to  deter  us  from  a  closer  Christian  unity 
and  a  more  large-hearted  charity. 

Again,  there  is  not  more  division  in  the  different  Protestant 
denominations  than  there  exists  between  the  different  religious 
orders  and  schools  of  divinity  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  The 
secular  priests  have  very  little  regard  for  the  monks  and  the 
other  regular  clergy.  The  former  consider  themselves  tlie 
clergy  of  the  Church,  and  look  upon  the  latter  as  interlopers 
in  their  parishes;  whilst  the  latter  consider  themselves 
more  sanctified  than  the  secular  priests.  If  you  wish  to  know 


170  Roman  Catholicism. 

what  real  exclusiveness  and  religious  intolerance  is,  you 
should  become  acquainted  with  the  monkish  orders.  They 
believe  that  they  alone  are  in  the  right  path  of  salvation,  and 
are  sure  that  the  rest  of  their  Church  is  in  danger  of  perdi- 
tion and  on  the  precipice  of  eternal  ruin ;  practically,  their 
order  is  their  Church,  out  of  which  there  is  no  salvation ;  all 
their  actions  seem  to  be  performed  for  the  glory  and  extension 
of  their  religious  institution.  The  means  they  use  to  this 
end  are  many ;  each  order,  nay,  each  monastery,  has  its  own 
peculiar  superstitions  by  which  they  endeavour  to  attract  the 
ignorant  crowd  and  obtain  its  favour.  Each  order  has  its 
peculiar  sanctuaries,  its  holy  shrines  to  which  pilgrimages  are 
performed;  each  has  its  own  miraculous  images  and  medals; 
each  praises  its  own  holy  wares,  and  depreciates  those  of  the 
rest ;  each  endeavours  to  acquire  an  ascendancy  in  the  vulgar 
mind.  And  when  one  order  has  acquired  an  influence  superior  to 
the  rest,  they  palm  off  their  peculiar  superstitions  on  the  whole 
Church,  which  they  can  easily  effect  by  their  emissaries,  be- 
cause they  have  their  ramifications  and  affiliated  houses  in  all 
countries.  If  you  offend  one  member  of  a  religious  order,  you 
have  all  the  monks  of  that  order  against  you.  Each  order  is 
an  imperium  in  imperio.  Now,  the  infallible  Church  fosters 
the  establishment  of  religious  orders  ;  she  sanctions  their  ex- 
emptions, privileges,  peculiarities  and  superstitions,  and  thus 
fosters  hatreds  and  animosities.  Here,  again,  I  affirm  that 
there  exists  more  brotherly  love  and  union  among  the  differ- 
ent •  Protestant  denominations  than  among  the  religious 
orders  of  the  Church  of  E,ome. 

Roman  Catholics  boast  much,  as  against  Protestants, 
of  their  unity  in  doctrine.  Now,  we  affirm  that  there  are 
great  divisions  between  their  different  schools  of  divinity. 
In  regard  to  Church-governnient  and  the  infallibility  of  the 


infallibility  Not  the  Principle  of  Unity.      171 

pope,  the  Gallican  school  of  theologians  was  bitterly  oppos 
ed.  before  the  Vatican  council,  to  the  Roman  or  Ultramon- 
tane school.  The  whole  Church  was  divided  into  these  two 
schools.  The  Roman  school  condemned  the  Gallican  doctrine 
as  proxima  hcBvesi,  and  defended  their  own  as  proximafidei; 
and  they  succeeded  in  stamping  it  out  in  the  Vatican  coun- 
cil where  the  personal  infallibility  of  the  pope  was  declared. 
Since  that  time,  the  minimizers  and  maximizers  of  the 
meaning  of  the  term  ex  cathedra  and  of  ex  cathedra  defini- 
tions take  the  place  of  the  former  Galileans  and  Ultramon- 
tanes,  and  will  surely  distiu-b  the  doctrinal  peace  and 
endanger  the  frail  unity  of  the  Church.  In  regard  to  grace 
and  predestination,  again,  there  are  the  schools  of  the 
Augustinians,  Molinists,  and  Thomists,  which  differ  widely 
from  each  other,  and  caused,  for  centuries,  the  greatest  excite- 
ment and  division  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  At  one  time  the 
Bull  was  ready,  but  never  issued,  declaring  ex  cathedra  the 
Thomist  doctrine  as  dejide,  and  condemning  the  doctrine  of 
the  Molinists  or  Jesuits.  Yet,  the  papacy  afterwards  inflicted 
a  severe  blow  on  the  Thomist  doctrine  by  condemning  the 
Augustinus  of  Jansenius.  There  was  a  time  when  both 
parties  were  so  much  embittered  against  each  other,  that 
they  denounced  one  another  as  heretics.  The  pope  had  to  imr 
pose  silence  on  both  parties.  The  Molinists  condemned  the 
Thomist  doctrine  as  bordering  closely  on  Calvinism ;  while 
the  Thomists  denounced  the  doctrine  of  their  opponents  as 
savouring  of  Pelagianism.  These  disputes  are  still  in  the 
Church  and  cause  divisions  among  theologians.  Hot  disputes 
exist  in  regard  to  moral  casuistry.  There  are  the  Rigorists, 
Probabiliorists,  Probabilists,  and  Laxists.  There  was  scarcely 
a  point  of  practice  in  which  theologians  and  fathers  confes- 
sors were  agreed,  and  this  must  certainly   have  caused  the 


172  Roman  Catholicism. 

greatest  perplexity  in  the  consciences  of  the  people.  It  was 
then  declared  by  the  pope  that  one  may  safely  follow  the 
works  of  Alfonso  Liguori.  But  even  this  decree  has  not 
settled  the  controversies  in  regard  to  moral  theology.  The 
Laxists  ex  professo  have  been  condemned,  but  the  other 
schools  still  exist  and  attack  each  other  vehemently,  so  that 
one  father  confessor  grants  absolution  where  another  would 
absolutely  refuse  it,  because  he  belongs  to  a  different  school. 
Notwithstanding  the  outward  doctrinal  tranquillity  on  the 
surface  of  the  Church  of  E-ome,  thei-e  is  at  present  an  inter- 
nal fermentation  going  on  in  the  minds  of  her  intelligent 
members,  which,  in  course  of  time,  must  burst  out  and  set 
the  house  on  fire.  They  vaunt  their  unity,  but  let  them 
reflect  that  that  unity  is  brought  about  by  external  pressure. 
They  themselves  must  be  conscious  that  their  Church  does 
not  enjoy  real  internal  peace  and  unity.  The  differences 
among  evangelical  Protestants  in  doctrinal  points  are  not 
greater  than  they  are  among  Roman  Catholics,  and  they  have 
therefore  nothing  to  boast  of  as  agrainst  Protestants. 


LECTUKE    IV. 

PERNICIOUS  INFLUENCE   OF    THE   INFALLIBILITY- 
DOCTRINE  ON  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  CHURCH 
AS  WITNESS-BEARER. 

THE  system  of  ecclesiastical  infallibility  exerts,  above  all, 
the  most  pernicious  influence  on  tbe  office  of  the  Church  as 
"witness-bearer  to  the  truths  which  God  has  revealed  to  her. 
It  not  only  distorts  and  obscures  them,  but  adds  to  the 
deposit  of  faith  the  traditions  of  men. 

We  have  seen,  in  the  first  part  of  this  course  of  lectures, 
in  what  sense  the  Church  as  a  living  and  continuous  society 
bears  witness  to  the  revealed  truths  of  God,  and  reviewed 
the  arguments  by  which  Koman  Catholics  endeavour  to 
establish  the  necessity  of  infallibility  for  the  due  performance 
of  this  office.  Let  us  now  pass  from  the  theory  to  the  reality 
and  see  what  difficulties  they  actually  encounter  in  the 
witness-bearing  of  their  Church. 

They  teach  that  their  Church  is  the  infallible  living 
witness  through  an  uninterrupted  chain  of  traditional  links; 
that  she  existed  anterior  to,  and  independent  of,  written 
documents ;  that,  in  fact,  these  have  no  essential  value,  since 
she  could  bear  witness  without  them.  Although  the  Scrip- 
tures and  the  works  of  the  fathers  should  perish,  the  Church 
would,  according  to  their  system,  be  just  as  trustworthy  a 
witness  without  them  as  she  was  before  with  them.  A 
number  of  difficulties  arise  here  which  appear  to  be  insur- 
mountable. 


174  Roman  Catholicism. 

In  the  first  place,  in  order  to  be  a  true  traditional  witness, 
the  present  episcopal  body  is  bound  to  show  its  unbroken 
succession  from  the  Apostles  through  all  succeeding  links. 
They  cannot  do  it ;  for  to  prove  it  by  oral  tradition  would 
be  begging  the  question. 

One  demand  of  the  bishops,  in  whom  the  gift  of  infalli- 
bility is  said  to  reside,  is  :  Show  us  your  credentials ;  prove 
that  you  are  the  successors  of  the  Apostles  in  a  continuous 
chain.  They  are  bound  to  prove  this  Apostolical  succession, 
and  that  with  infallibility.  They  must  prove  also  that  the 
bishops,  and  particularly  all  the  popes,  who  form  the  grand 
links  in  the  chain  of  succession,  were  baptized  and  rightly 
ordained.  If  one  link  in  the  chain  be  made  of  a  bishop  who 
was  not  baptized,  or  not  validly  ordained,  the  whole  chain 
must  fall  to  pieces  like  a  rope  of  sand.  They  must,  moreover, 
be  certain  which  pope  was  the  rightful  bishop  of  Rome  in 
those  times  when  there  were  several  claimants  to  the  pope- 
dom ;  for  if  there  were  a  usurper  in  the  papal  chair,  all  his 
acts,  as  head  of  the  Church,  would  be  null  and  void;  and  it 
would  not  be  a  chain  which  God  has  linked  together.  The 
truth  and  legitimacy  of  this  succession  should  be  patent  to 
all  men.  They  have  recourse  to  tradition  to  prove  it ;  but 
do  they  prove  it  1     Ca7i  they  prove  it  1 

They  say,  it  is  in  the  nature  of  every  society  to  bear  testi- 
mony of  itself,  of  its  origin,  constitution  and  identity.  We 
answer  that,  in  order  to  prove  the  identity  of  a  society  its 
history  must  be  known.  And  you  can  never  acquire  this 
knowledge,  especially  if  the  society  be  of  ancient  date,  by 
oral  tradition  only ;  there  never  existed  such  an  instance. 
How  then  will  the  Church  of  Rome  establish  her  identity  ? 
According  to  her  system,  which  claims  entire  independence 
Oi  written  documents,   as   being   the  living  witness  of  the 


Perniciousness  of  Infallibility-Doctrine.       175 

faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,  she  must  requii'e  her  mem- 
bers to  believe  that  she  is  the  identical  Church  of  Christ, 
merely  because  she  says  so;  she  must,  likewise,  require  them 
to  believe  in  her  authority  merely  because  she  claims  to  be 
infallible.  In  other  words,  she  must  be  infallible  because 
she  is  the  living  witness;  and  she  is  the  living  witness  be- 
cause she  knows  this  with  infallibility.  Where  is  here  their 
boasted  logic  ? 

They  reply  to  our  reasoning  that  their  theory  of  the  Church 
being  a  living  witness  by  means  of  traditional  links  does  not 
exclude  written  documents ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  she  ad- 
mits them,  and  renders  them  authoritative  by  her  testimony, 
and  that  these  same  documents,  taken  as  mere  historical 
evidence,  serve  conclusively  to  prove  her  identity.  They 
invite  us  to  compare  their  Church  in  her  present  state  with 
the  Bible,  in  order  to  recognize  her  identity  with  the  Apos- 
tolical Church;  to  compare  her  teachings  with  the  writings 
of  the  fathers  and  other  ecclesiastical  authors,  in  order  that 
we  may  see  her  continued  and  uninterrupted  identity  in  all 
ages,  both  internally  and  externally. 

It  is  evident  that  in  thus  reasoning  they  contradict  their 
system.  For,  if  all  the  doctrines  had  to  be  written  down,  so 
as  to  establish  the  identity  of  the  Church,  what  is  the  use  of 
oral  tradition  at  all  ?  The  Church,  in  that  case,  can  only 
teach  that  which  is  written  down,  otherwise  the  members 
cannot  be  certain  that  what  she  teaches  is  true.  If,  by 
written  documents  only,  whether  of  human  or  divine  autho- 
rity, it  matters  not — ^we  can  and  must  know  whether  the 
bishops,  either  separately  or  as  a  body,  teach  true  doctrine, 
then  all  that  has  to  be  taught  must  have  been  written  down 
by  the  founders  of  the  Ghw^ch.  Every  subsequent  written 
document  must  contain  nothing  more  than  is  contained  in 


176         •  Roman  Catholicism, 

Scripture;  otherwise  they  could  not  prove  by  it  the  identity 
of  the  Church.  Hence,  Eoman  Catholics,  being  compelled  to 
admit  that  by  written  documents  only  the  identity  of  their 
Church  as  a  true  witness  of  divine  revelation  can  be  satis- 
factorily proved,  must  admit  also  that  the  only  doctrines  of 
Christianity  to  be  taught  and  preached  since  the  times  of  the 
Apostles  must  be  contained  in  sacred  Scripture,  and  that  all 
doctrines  not  contained  therein  cannot,  with  any  show  of 
reason,  be  held  and  believed  as  doctrines  of  Christ,  but  must 
be  considered  as  so  many  innovations.  Here,  then,  however 
reluctantly,  they  are  constrained  to  come  back  to  the  Pro- 
testant principle — the  Bible  alone  as  the  only  rule  of  faith. 

The  Roman  Catholic  system  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of 
things;  hence  they  themselves  constantly  contradict  it.  If 
theii*  independence  of  the  Bible  and  other  written  documents 
were  reliable,  why  did  they  write  the  doctrines  down  %  Why 
do  they  constantly  appeal  only  to  wi^itten  documents  when 
they  wish  to  prove  any  of  their  tenets  %  Does  this  not  show 
conclusively  that  the  depositum  of  faith  can  only  be  preserv- 
ed by  the  certain  and  safe  means  of  written  documents,  and 
not  in  the  vague  and  uncertain  channel  of  the  oral  witness- 
bearing  of  the  Chiu'ch  ? 

When  the  Church  of  Rome  gives  a  dogmatic  definition  or 
decree  about  any  doctrinal  point,  she  does  not  pretend  to 
establish  a  new  doctrine,  but  merely  declares  that  such 
and  such  a  doctrine  is  contained  in  the  depositum  she  has 
received  from  Christ.  And  this  depositum  they  believe  to 
be  the  written  and  unwritten  Word  of  God.  The  unwritten 
word,  too,  has  been  written  down,  and  is  contained  in  the 
fathers  and  other  ecclesiastical  writers.  The  dej^ositum, 
therefore,  in  which  the  living  authority  declares  a  doctrine 
to  be  contained,  is  contained  in  written  documents.     Hence. 


Perniciousness  of  Infallibility -Doctrine.       177 

by  tradition  we  have  to  understand,  not  tlie  oral  living  tra- 
ditional links,  but  the  representative  ecclesiastical  writers  of 
every  age. 

Moreover,  Roman  Catholics  teach  that  the  Church,  in 
drawing  from  this  depoaitwm  is  not  inspired,  but  assisted  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Assistance  presupposes  that  the  ordinary 
means  are  employed  of  finding  out  the  truth.  Of  course, 
without  such  employment  there  would  be  no  assistance. 
It  is  to  be  supposed  that  these  means  lie  within  the  reach  of 
possibility,  and  that  their  use  is  not  a  superhuman  task. 

The  Roman  Catholic  bishops,  therefore,  before  they  can 
expect  the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Chost,  Tnu^t  first  and  fore- 
most  act  the  part  of  theologians.  They  must  thoroughly  study 
the  deposit  of  faith.  Now  are  we  sure  that  they  do  so  before 
giving  a  decree  or  definition  ?  History  and  experience  sug- 
gest that  bishops  are  not  always  the  most  learned  and  indus- 
trious of  men.  We  cannot  say  that,  in  many  cases,  favouritism 
has  had  no  share  or  influence  in  their  appointment ;  nor  are 
intrigues  altogether  out  of  the  question.  We  think  that 
aptitude  for  government  is  generally  considered  a  more 
suitable  qualification  for  the  bishopric  than  theological 
learning  and  acquirements.  It  would  appear  that  inquisitive 
men  and  profound  scholars  are  seldom  raised  to  the  episcopal 
dignity ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  men,  from  whose  disposition 
to  enquire  nothing  has  to  be  feared,  who  are  usually  elevated 
to  that  responsible  position.  It  has  also  to  be  considered 
that  the  bishops,  instead  of  studying  theology,  have  quite 
enough  to  occupy  them  in  attending  to  the  government  of 
their  dioceses ;  and  not  a  few  of  them  love  the  otium  cum 
dignitate. 

The  fact  is  that  the  episcopal  body,  before  giving  a  dog- 
matic   decision,    before   saying  placet,    never  prosecutes  a 


178  Roman  Catholicism. 

thorough  study  of  the  question.  Now,  how  can  they,  accord- 
ing to  their  own  theory,  expect  the  assistance  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  if  th  ey  do  not  work  1  Does  assistance  not,  it  may  be 
added,  involve  the  supposition  of  work?  In  all  general 
councils,  the  time  is  too  limited  for  a  searching  investigation 
and  discussion  of  questions. 

Whence  it  follows  that  the  decrees  of  general  councils  and 
the  unanimous  belief  of  the  ecdesia  dispersa  can  only  teach 
us  what  the  episcopal  body  for  the  time  being  holds  and  be- 
lieves ;  but  they  render  us,  by  no  means,  certain  that  their 
decrees  and  decisions  are  consistent  with  the  depositumof  {aith. 
Practically,  then,  they  take  for  granted  that  the  present 
living  traditional  link  holds  exactly  the  doctrines  which 
every  one  of  the  preceding  links  held  up  to  the  time  of  the 
Apostles.  Theoretically,  they  hold  that  a  thorough  examin- 
ation is  required  of  the  written  documents  containing  the 
Church's  doctrines  ',  that  only  then  may  they  expect  the  as- 
sistance of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  that,  after  a  mature  study  of 
these  documents,  with  the  help  of  God's  Spirit,  they  are  able 
to  render  the  members  of  the  Church  infallibly  certain  that 
such  and  such  a  doctrine  is  contained  in  Scripture  or  in  the 
totum  of  the  representative  ecclesiastical  writers — the  fathers 
and  doctors  of  the  Church.  Is  there  not  a  palpable  contra- 
diction here  between  theory  and  practice  1 

They  reply  that  each  bishop  has  his  trustworthy  and 
learned  divines  who  study,  in  his  stead,  the  difficult  points 
of  controverted  questions  and  give  him  their  well-matured 
decision ;  that  each  council,  too,  employs  the  most  eminent 
theologians  that  are  to  be  found  in  the  Church,  who  are  well 
versed  in  sacred  Scripture  and  in  the  whole  range  of  written 
tradition ;  and  that  these  make  a  thorough  study  of  the  points 
in  dispute  and  enlighten  the  bishops. 


Perniciousness  of  Infallibility' Doctrine.       179 

Here  we  have  another  contradiction  of  their  system  in  its 
practical  working.  To  the  labours  of  the  bishops,  not  to  the 
study  of  their  theologians,  was  promised  the  assistance  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  It  depends  on  the  decision  of  the  bishops  whether 
it  shall  be  received  as  a  dogma  that  such  and  such  a  doctrine 
is  contained  in  the  depositum  of  faith.  If  the  bishops,  after 
the  labours  and  conclusions  of  their  theologians,  declare 
that  it  is  taught  in  Scripture  and  tradition,  they  appear  to 
give  this  decision,  because  they  believe  in  the  results  of  the 
study  of  their  divines.  And  if  they  do  not  wish  to  have  a 
blind  belief  in  the  labours  of  their  fallible  inferiors,  they 
must  make  a  careful  revision  and  examination  of  them. 
How  can  they  do  this  without  the  knowledge,  for  themselves 
and  by  themselves,  of  the  contents  of  sacred  Scrij)ture  and  the 
whole  range  of  tradition  so  far,  at  least,  as  regards  the  par- 
ticular points  in  question?  Thus,  while  they  think  and 
maintain  that  their  decisions  in  regard  to  controverted  points 
are  based  on  and  contained  in  the  deposit  of  faith,  they  are, 
in  reality,  based  on  the  studies  of  fallible  men,  not  even  be- 
longing to  the  teaching  body — of  men  who  have  no  vote  in 
the  Church. 

And  let  me  ask,  who  are  these  theologians  whom  the 
bishops  employ  as  their  assistants  and  guides '?  They  may 
be  learned  and  well-meaning  men,  yet  they  are  determined 
not  to  discuss  the  doctrines  which  the  episcopal  body  at  pre- 
sent holds,  but  to  take  them  as  true  and  to  defend  them  at 
any  cost.  This  is  the  basis  of  their  trustworthiness,  and  of 
the  reliance  the  bishops  place  in  them ;  they  are  men  who 
view  things  in  an  undisguised  party  spirit  and  are  utterly 
destitute  of  impartiality.  As  it  is  impossible  for  them  to 
study  the  doctrine  in  question  through  the  whole  range  of  sacred 
Scripture  and  tradition,  they  one-sidedly  search   for  those 


180  Roman  Catholicis7fu 

passages  and  texts  which  seem  to  favour  their  thesis. 
Party  spirit  will  twist  and  turn  anything  to  its  advan- 
tage, and  it  is  astonishing  how  far  it  can  venture  in  this 
direction. 

What  is  the  process  by  which  the  Church  draws  the  pre- 
cious treasure  of  divine  revelation  from  tradition — the  mine 
of  antiquity — and  imparts  it  to  her  hungry  children,  even 
without  their  seeking  it  ?  Do  all  her  priests  read  and  under- 
stand all  the  holy  fathers,  the  decrees  of  councils,  &c.,  &c.  % 
Not  one  in  a  thousand  has  ever  read,  in  the  originals,  half  a 
dozen  of  the  fathers.  How  could  they  do  it  1  A  great 
amount  of  criticism  is  required  to  distinguish  the  genuine 
and  true  from  the  false  and  erroneous.  Is  it  not  a  well- 
known  fact  that  persons  who  are  always  on  the  defensive  and 
are  never  allowed  seriously  to  discuss  existing  doctrines  are 
very  bad  critics  ?  Do  men  who  repose  quietly  on  the  pillow 
oi  present  tranquillity  care  much  to  be  disturbed  by  enquiries 
into  the  teaching  of  the  past  J 

Even  if  the  bishops  and  theologians  had  the  desire  to  ar- 
rive at  judicial  conclusions  from  the  study  of  written  tradi- 
tion, they  could  not  do  it ;  it  would  be  a  superhuman  task. 
Tradition  comprises  so  many  writings  of  fathers  and 
doctors,  acts  of  councils  both  general  and  particular,  and 
other  documents,  that  it  is  utterly  impossible  for  any  man 
even  to  read  them  with  an  ordinary  degree  of  attention  and 
care. 

The  difficulty  of  understanding  them  is  still  greater.  It 
requires  a  knowledge  of  the  original  languages,  Oriental, 
Latin,  and  Greek.  And  this  knowledge  must  not  be  a  super- 
ficial one ;  it  requires  a  critical  acquaintance  with  all  the 
changes  a  language  undergoes  when  transferred  from  one  class 
Oi  objects  to  another,  and  in  passing  from  one  generation  to 


Perniciousness  of  Infallibility-Doctrine.        181 

another,  from  one  country  to  another,  from  being  a  living 
to  becoming  a  dead  language.  Thus,  classical  Latin  and 
Greek  are  vastly  different  from  ecclesiastical  Latin  and 
Greek.  So  African  Latin  differs  from  that  spoken  in  Italy, 
and  this  again  from  French,  or  Spanish,  or  German  Latin. 
The  Latin  of  the  Roman  empire  is  different  from  the  Latin 
of  the  middle  ages  ;  the  Latin  of  the  fathers  differs  from  the 
Latin  of  the  schoolmen.  The  same  changes  must  be  considered 
in  reference  to  the  Oriental  and  Greek  languages. 

The  difficulty  increases,  if  you  take  into  consideration  that 
all  these  writers  have  their  peculiar  philosophical  views.  A 
thorough  knowledge,  therefore,  of  these  is  an  essential  requis- 
ite for  rightly  understanding  and  duly  appreciating  their 
dicta.  The  nature,  also,  of  the  doctrines  they  refuted,  the 
circumstances  of  times,  places,  and  persons,  must  all  be  pro- 
perly and  thoroughly  appraised. 

Who  does  not  see  that  it  is  utterly  impossible  for  any 
ordinary  human  being,  during  the  short  period  of  his  mortal 
life,  and  the  very  few  years  in  which  his  understanding  is 
sufficiently  matured  for  such  a  task,  to  acquire  an  adequate 
knowledge  of  all  this  %  An  impartial  thinker  must,  there- 
fore, come  to  the  conclusion  that  a  serious  and  reflecting 
Roman  Catholic  can  never  arrive  at  the  point  when  he  is 
able  to  give  a  sufficient  reason  of  the  hope  that  is  within  him 
— a  reason  that  would  be  in  conformity  with  his  system.  Hence 
it  is  no  secret  that  members  of  that  Church,  notwithstanding 
all  their  glorying  and  boasting  about  tradition,  fathers,  and 
councils,  have  as  little  reverence  for  them  as  for  the  Scriptures 
themselves  and  that  the  infallible  Church  is  all  in  all. 

But  let  us  suppose  that  they  could  acquire  a  correct  and 
sufficient  knowledge  of  the  fathers  and  other  branches  of  tra 
dition,  what  would  they  have  gained?   Would  they  be  certain 


182  Roman  Catholicism. 

even  in  that  case,  of  having  obtained  the  truth  ?  Are  they 
sure  that  the  fathers  are  competent  witnesses?  Accord- 
ing to  the  Koman  system,  each  father,  individually,  is  fallible. 
His  testimony,  therefore,  has  only  human  authority,  and  is 
subject  to  all  the  rules  of  criticism  to  which  other  historians 
must  submit. 

Suppose  and  take  for  granted  that  the  fathers  had  no 
wilful  intention  to  relate  falsehoods  and  that  they  were 
veracious  and  impartial,  as  champions  of  the  faith  ought  to 
be ;  let  us  enquire  how  far  they  are  competent.  Were 
they  as  a  matter  of  fact  able  to  know  more  than  we  know  of 
the  oral  teachings  of  the  Apostles  1  "We  admit  that  those  who 
heard  the  Apostles  were  competent ;  but  they  are  very  few 
in  number.  We  have  only  fragments  of  their  writings,  and 
so  far  as  they  are  genuine,  they  contain  nothing  in  addition 
to  what  is  contained  in  Scripture.  They  are  not  available, 
therefore,  to  establish  distinctive  Roman  Catholic  doctrines 
based  on  the  oral  teaching  of  the  Apostles.  They  are 
not  available  to  settle  controversies  between  Roman  Catholics 
and  Protestants. 

Those  fathers  whose  testimony  is  chiefly  employed  by 
Roman  Catholic  divines  in  establishing  their  distinctive 
dogmas  lived  from  one  to  four  and  even  six  hundred  years 
later  than  the  Apostles  whose  oral  teaching  they  are  supposed 
to  report.  But  they  were  removed  by  generations  from  the 
Apostolic  age,  and  of  course,  could  have  no  personal  know- 
ledge of  what  the  Apostles  preached,  except  by  their  writings. 

They  reply  that  a  personal  knowledge  is  not  required,  that 
it  is  sufficient  if  they  relate  to  us  what  claimed  universal  or 
catholic  consent  during  their  times.  This,  of  course,  they  do. 
Now,  what  received  universal  assent  in  ages  so  near  the  Apos- 
tolical times  is  more  satisfactorily  gathered  from  the  Apostles 


Perniciousness  of  Infallibility-Doctrine.       183 

themselves.  Directly,  then,  they  bear  testimony  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church,  during  their  times,  and 
indirectly  to  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles. 

We  answer  that  we  can  scarcely  suppose  that  each  father 
knew  what  all  the  Christian  churches  held  and  believed,  and 
not  knowing  this,  he  cannot  be  a  witness  for  the  Catholic 
doctrine.  Intercommunication  between  the  different  Churches 
in  those  times  was  exceedingly  difficult.  They  were  not 
times  of  peace,  but  of  convulsion.  The  Eoman  empire 
was  crumbling  to  pieces,  and  Barbarians  were  invading  it 
from  the  North,  East,  and  South.  As  the  art  of  printing  had 
not  yet  been  discovered,  writings  were  comparatively  scarce. 
How  then  could  these  fathers  know  the  universal  consent  of 
all  Churches'?  If  they  expressly  tell  us,  sometimes,  that 
such  and  such  a  doctrine  is  held  by  all  Churches,  may  they 
not  have  been  deceived?  The  limits  of  their  catholicity 
are  sometimes  very  narrow.  Thus  the  African  fathers  say 
that  a  doctrine  is  catholic,  if  they  find  it  in  Africa  and  on 
the  opposite  shores  of  Italy,  the  Oriental  fathers  hold  a  doc- 
trine to  be  catholic,  if  they  find  it  in  the  East,  &c.,  &c.  For 
these  reasons  it  appears  very  doubtful  whether  one  branch 
of  the  Church  knew  what  the  other  branches  held.  How 
much  more  doubtful,  then,  must  it  appear  that  the  indi- 
viduals, whose  writings  have  come  down  to  us,  knew  exactly 
what  the  whole  universal  Church  held  as  Apostolical  doctrines? 

But  let  us  concede  that  every  branch  of  the  Church  knew 
what  all  the  other  Churches  believed  and  practised,  and  that 
the  testimony  of  the  fathers  proves  a  universal  consent  in 
faith  and  practice;  this  would  give  us  nothing  more  than  a 
probability  that  the  doctrines  and  usages  they  report  came 
from  the  Apostles ;  for  we  know  that  the  seeds  of  error  were 
very  early  scattered  amongst  the  professors  of  Christianity. 


184  Roman  Catholicism. 

Uninspired  men,  although  professing  a  holy  life,  half-con- 
verted philosophers,  worldly-minded  Christians,  engrafted 
errors  very  early  upon  the  Christian  vine.  The  testimony 
of  these  witnesses,  then,  either  in  relation  to  what  the 
Apostles  preached,  or  as  to  what  the  universal  Church  be- 
lieved and  practised,  is  not  an  adequate  test  of  truth — the 
witnesses  not  being  competent  to  know  the  truth  of  what 
they  attest. 

In  the  next  place,  their  testimony  is  not  precise  and  clear. 
If  you  consider  the  scope  of  their  writings,  they  are  often 
made  to  say  what  they  never  meant.  Isolated  passages  may 
be  cited  to  prove  anything  ;  texts  which  are  quoted  to  estab- 
lish Roman  Catholic  doctrines  are  often  most  obscure,  and 
sometimes  incomprehensible ;  meanings  are  sometimes  given 
to  words  which  they  never  were  intended  to  convey.  Now, 
a  testimony  which  is  not  simple,  precise,  clear  and  indisput- 
able, cannot  be  relied  upon.  Of  this  nature  are  the  greater 
part  of  the  texts  from  the  early  fathers  quoted  by  Roman 
Catholic  theologians. 

Doubt,  again,  arises  with  regard  to  the  matter  deposed, 
when  witnesses  of  equal  competency  and  credibility  clash 
with  each  other.  How  often  does  the  testimony  of  one 
father  contradict  that  of  another.  How  often  do  contempor- 
ary fathers  disagree  with  each  other  in  regard  to  the  universal 
consent  to  which  they  appeal.  There  were  violent  conten- 
tions in  the  Church  during  the  centuries  in  which  these 
fathers  lived;  all  appealed  to  the  universal  consent;  all 
thought  they  had  this  universal  consent  in  their  favour. 
Whose  testimony  shall  we  accept  %  Shall  we  believe  the 
testimony  of  one  father  in  preference  to  another,  while 
this  other  is  equally  competent?  Shall  we  believe  the 
testimony  of  those  whom  the  Church  of  Rom«  has  dignified 
as  fathers,  in  preference  to  their  opponents  % 


Perniciousness  of  Infallihility-Doctrine.       185 

But  the  doubt  in  regard  to  the  truth  of  their  testimony  is 
still  further  increased,  if  we  consider  that  one  and  the  same 
father  may  contradict  his  own  testimony  in  his  own  writings. 
There  are  many  instances  where  this  is  the  case  j  is  then  any 
part  of  the  testimony  of  such  a  witness  reliable  % 

Let  us  give  due  honor  and  credit  to  the  fathers.  But 
their  writings  can  only  have  value  for  us  in  so  far  as  they  are 
based  on  the  writings  of  the  Apostles  and  are  contained  there- 
in. When  they  are  made  to  be  witnesses  of  the  oral  teach- 
ings of  the  Apostles  which  are  not  contained  in  sacred 
Scripture,  they  are  valueless.  Each  one  taken  separately  is 
a  fallible  witness ;  how  then  can  their  united  testimony  be 
infallible,  even  if  we  could  secure  it  % 


LECTUEE    V. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  DEVELOPMENT  A  NECESSARY  CON- 
SEQUENCE OF  THE  INFALLIBILITY-THEORY, 

WE  saw  in  our  last  lecture  that  the  Church  of  E,ome  is 
not  the  infallible  witness  of  the  revealed  truths  of 
Christ,  because  of  the  impossibility  of  applying  her  famous 
ycIq — quod  semper,  ubique,  et  ah  omnibus  creditum  est,  to  her 
decrees  and  definitions.  This  application  would  involve  the 
vast  labour  of  seeking  and  finding  the  dogmas  she  defines 
and  issues,  in  the  history  and  traditions  of  the  Church,  from 
the  days  of  the  Apostles,  through  all  succeeding  generations. 
As  they  themselves  see  the  difficulty  of  the  task,  they  have 
practically  given  it  up;  and,  for  the  most  part,  do  not 
even  attempt  it.  They  have  thi'own  off  the  burden  of  prov- 
ing their  distinctive  tenets  by  arguments  drawn  from  the 
depositum  of  faith  which  they  pretend  to  guard,  as  too  heavy 
for  their  shoulders,  and  content  themselves  with  leaning 
altogether  on  the  infallible  authority  of  their  Church. 

But  in  order  to  show  the  reasonableness  of  their  belief  in 
the  present  teaching  of  their  Church  they  have  betaken 
themselves  to  the  doctrine  of  development  or  dogmatic  evolu- 
tion. They  compare  the  Word  of  God  to  a  seed.  As  the 
seed  contains  within  itself  the  tree  with  its  branches,  flowers, 
and  fruit,  so  also  God's  Word,  originally  simple,  hid- 
den, and  mysterious,  comprises   within  itself  the  manifold 


Development  a  Consequence  of  Infallibility.     187 

teaching  of  the  infallible  Church  throughout  all  ages.  Besides 
the  explicit  belief  and  teaching  of  the  Church  in  each  tradi- 
tional link,  they  admit  that  there  are  also  a  whole  body  of 
implicit  doctrines  which  require  to  be  developed  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  guiding  the  Church  and  leading  her  into  all 
truth.  In  a  word,  they  teach  that  the  faith,  primitively 
implicit,  must  become  explicit ;  that  it  must  not  be  supposed 
that  the  truth  is  incapable  of  progression,  or  that  the  teaching 
of  the  Church  must  remain  stationary  and  stereotyped. 

They  imagine  that  this  doctrine  of  development  wonderfully 
assists  them  in  defending  the  doctrines  deifined  by  their 
Church,  in  every  age.  Everything  in  nature  and  society,  in 
the  sciences  and  arts,  proclaims  the  doctrine  of  development  j 
why  should  the  Church,  in  her  faith  and  practice,  be  exempt 
from  this  universal  law  of  evolution  1  They  pity  us  poor 
Protestants  as  obscurantists  and  retrograding  malcontents 
because  we  go  back  to  the  Old  Bible  and  refuse  to  make  any 
progress  in  our  dogmartic  teaching.  They  tell  us  that  the 
Keformation  not  only  stopped  the  car  of  progress,  but  drove 
it  back  to  the  primitive  times  of  Christianity.  By  this 
4octrine  of  development  they  hope  to  eliminate  the  difficul- 
ties of  their  dogmatic  teaching  and  to  cover  deficiencies 
in  their  arguments.  No  doubt,  it  pleases  and  attracts  their 
members  and  retains  many  within  the  bosom  of  the  Church. 

The  learned  Dr.  Newman  has  written  a  very  profound  and 
philosophical  book  on  the  doctrine  of  development,  in  its 
manifold  relations.  It  is  much  esteemed  by  Roman  divines 
and  forms  part  of  their  standard  theological  literature.  I 
read  it,  many  years  ago,  and  regret  that  I  have  not  a  copy  at 
hand  for  present  quotation.  I  must  content  myself  wi^h  the 
remarks  on  development  he  makes  in  his  "  Reply  to  Mr. 
Gladstone's  Expostulation,^^     He  says  (p.  70)  : 


188  Roman  Catholicism, 

"  For  myself,  I  would  simply  confess  tliat  no  doctrine  of 
the  Church  can  be  rigorously  proved  by  historical  evidence  ; 
but  at  the  same  time  that  no  doctrine  can  be  simply  disproved 
by  it ;  historical  evidence  reaches  a  certain  way,  more  or 
less,  towards  a  proof  of  the  Catholic  doctrines — often  nearly 
the  whole  way ;  sometimes  it  goes  only  so  far  as  to  point  in 
their  direction;  sometimes  there  is  only  an  absence  of 
evidence  for  a  conclusion  contrary  to  them ;  nay,  sometimes 
there  is  an  apparent  leaning  of  the  evidence  to  a  contrary 
conclusion,  which  has  to  be  explained :  in  all  cases  there  is 
a  margin  left  for  the  exercise  of  faith  in  the  word  of  the 
Church.  He  who  believes  the  dogmas  of  the  Church  only 
because  he  has  reasoned  them  out  of  History,  is  scarcely  a 
Catholic.  It  is  the  Church's  use  of  History  in  which  the 
Catholic  believes ;  and  he  uses  other  informants  also,  Scrip- 
ture, tradition,  the  ecclesiastical  sense,  or  (ppo'vT^jua  and  a 
subtle  ratiocinative  power,  which  in  its  origin  is  a  divine 
gift.  There  is  nothing  of  bondage  or  *  renunciation  of 
mental  freedom,'  in  this  view,  any  more  than  in  the  converts 
of  the  Apostles  believing  what  the  Apostles  might  preach  to 
them  or  teach  them  out  of  Scripture." 

"  "What  has  been  said  of  History  in  relation  to  the  formal 
definitions  of  the  Church  applies  also  to  the  exercise  of  ratio- 
cination. Our  logical  powers,  too,  being  a  gift  from  God, 
may  claim  to  have  theii  information  respected ;  and  Protest- 
ants sometimes  accuse  our  theologians,  for  instance,  the 
mediaeval  school  men,  of  having  used  them  in  divine  matters 
a  little  too  freely.  But  it  has  ever  been  our  teaching  and  our 
protest,  that,  as  there  are  doctrines  which  lie  beyond  the 
direct  'evidence  of  history,  so  there  are  doctrines  which 
transcend  the  discoveries  of  reason ;  and,  after  all,  whether 
they  are  more  or  less  recommended  to  us  by  the  one  infor- 


Development  a  Consequence  of  Infallibility.    189 

mant  or  the  other,  in  all  cases  the  immediate  motive  in  the 
mind  of  a  Catholic  for  his  reception  of  them  is,  not  that  they 
are  proved  to  him  by  reason  or  by  history,  but  because 
Revelation  has  declared  them  by  means  of  that  high  eccle- 
siastical magisterium  which  is  their  legitimate  exponent." 

"  What  has  been  said  also  applies  to  those  other  truths, 
with  which  ratiocination  has  morejto  do  than  history,  which 
are  sometimes  developments  of  Christian  doctrine — truths 
which  are  not  upon  the  surface  of  the  Apostolic  depositum, 
that  is,  the  legacy  of  Revelation, — but  which  from  time  to 
time  are  brought  into  form  by  theologians,  and  sometimes 
have  been  proposed  to  the  faithful,  by  the  Church,  as  direct 
objects  of  faith.  No  Catholic  would  hold  that  they  ought  to 
be  logically  deduced  in  their  fulness  and  exactness  from  the 
belief  of  the  first  centuries,  but  only  this,  that  on  the 
assumption  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  (which  will  over- 
come every  objection  except  a  contradiction  in  thought)  there 
is  nothing  greatly  to  try  the  reason  in  such  difficulties  as  occur 
in  reconciling  those  evolved  doctrines  with  the  teaching  of 
the  ancient  fathers ;  such  development  being  evidently  the 
.Qew  form,  explanation,  transformation,  or  carrying  out  of 
what  in  substance  was  held  from  the  first,  what  the  Apos- 
tles said,  but  have  not  recorded  in  writing,  or  would  neces- 
sarily have  said  under  our  circumstances,  or  if  they  had 
been  asked,  or  in  view  of  certain  uprisings  of  error,  and  in 
that  sense  really  portions  of  the  legacy  of  truth,  of  which  the 
Church,  in  all  her  members,  but  especially  in  her  hierarchy, 
is  the  divinely  appointed  trustee." 

"  Such  an  evolution  of  doctrine  has  been,  as  I  would  main- 
tain, a  law  of  the  Church's  teaching  from  the  earliest  times, 
and  in  nothing  is  her  title  of  '  semper  eadem'  more  remark- 
ably illubli'abed  than  in  the  correspondence  of  her  ancient 


190  Roman  Catholicism. 

and  modern  exhibition  of  it.  As  to  the  ecclesiastical  acts  of 
1854  and  1870,  I  think,  with  Mr.  Gladstone,  that  the  prin- 
ciple of  doctrinal  development,  and  that  of  authority,  have 
never,  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Church,  been  so  freely  and 
largely  used  as  in  the  definitions  then  promulgated  to  the  faith- 
ful; but  I  deny  that  at  either  time  the  testimony  of  history 
was  repudiated  or  perverted.  The  utmost  that  can  be  fairly 
said  by  an  opponent  against  the  theological  decisions  of  those 
years  is,  that  antecedently  to  the  event  it  might  appear  that 
there  were  no  sufficient  historical  grounds  in  behalf  of  either 
of  them — I  do  not  mean  for  a  personal  belief  in  either — but 
for  the  purpose  of  converting  a  doctrine  long  existing  in  the 
Church  into  a  dogma,  and  making  it  a  portion  of  the  Catholic 
creed.  This  adverse  anticipation  was  proved  to  be  a  mistake 
by  the  fact  of  the  definition  being  made." 

I  have  quoted  this  long  passage  both  because  it  shows  to 
us  how  far  the  Church's  infallible  magisterium  extends  and 
demands  the  assent  of  the  faithful,  as  also  because  it  gives 
us  some  insight  into  the  Roman  doctrine  of  dogmatic  evolu- 
tion. Plausible  as  this  doctrine  may  appear  at  first  sight, 
we  confess  that  there  seems  no  reason  that  should  induce  us  to 
embrace  it. 

In  the  first  place  it  presupposes  the  infallibility  of  the  Church 
otherwise  how  could  men  be  required,  under  pain  of  damna- 
tion, to  give  their  assent  to  these  developed  dogmas  if  the 
Church  that  evolves  and  decrees  them  as  articles  of  faith  be 
not  endowed  with  infallibility  1  On  the  other  hand  again, 
we  are  told  that  the  doctrine  of  ecclesiastical,  especially  papal, 
infallibility  is  a  result  of  this  dogmatic  development.  Is 
there  not  here  a  palpable  contradiction  1  As  the  doctrine  of 
infallibility  does  not  possess  prima  facie  evidence,  how,  in 
the  name  of  truth,  can  men  ever  acquire  a  convincing  cer- 


Development  a  Consequence  of  Infallibility.     191 

tainty  that  the  Church  and  the  pope  are  infallible  %  We 
have  seen  that  the  ordinary  depositum,  namely,  Scripture 
and  tradition,  do  not  prove  it,  and  now  we  are  informed  that 
development,  the  supplement  of  this  depositum^  does  not 
prove,  but  postulate  it. 

Again,  this  system  of  development  contradicts  their  rule 
of  faith.  They  teach  that  the  Church  can  decree  and  define 
nothing  but  what  is  contained  in  Scripture  and  tradition. 
Consequently  no  additions  can  be  made,  nor  may  any  previous 
dogma  be  amplified ;  the  definitions  and  decrees  must  not 
exceed  the  depositum  of  Scripture  and  tradition.  But  what 
do  we  see  1  The  doctrine  of  development  is  invoked  in  justi- 
fication of  those  very  dogmas  which  we  look  upon  as  additions, 
amplifications,  and  excesses.  Is  implicit  faith  synonymous 
with  additional  or  amplified  faith  ? 

,  Hence  also  this  development  system  is  a  contradiction  of 
their  famous  rule  of  catholicity,  quod  semper,  tohique  et  ah 
omnibus  creditum  est.  For,  what  is  not  expressed  in  Scrip- 
ture or  tradition,  what  is  not  known,  nor  even  dreamt  of, 
cannot  be  believed.  Belief  supposes  knowledge.  Let  them, 
not  say  that  it  was  implicitly  known,  consequently  implicitly 
believed.  The  rule  speaks  of  a  belief  that  is  manifested,  and 
only  as  such  can  it  become  a  criterion  of  faith.  How  can  the 
implicit  faith  of  past  ages  be  a  rule  for  any  one  by  which  he 
may  be  enabled  to  find  out  the  Catholic  faith  ?  Besides,  how 
can  additions  and  amplifications  come  within  the  category  of 
this  rule '? 

Discarding  thus  the  ancient  Catholic  rule  of  faith,  this 
theory  of  development  has  become  the  source  of  multiplying 
dogmas  ad  infrnitumi.  We  find  that  for  the  last  few  centuries 
they  have  based  nearly  all  the  dogmatic  definitions  they 
allowed  themselves  to  make  upon  this  transition  from  the 


192  Roman  Catholicism. 

implicit  to  the  explicit  faith.  They  have  dispensed  with  en- 
quiiy  into  the  documents  of  antiquity  in  order  to  justify  their 
innovations.  The  opinions  of  some  old  theologians  which 
enter  into  the  frame-work  of  their  ideas  are  eagerly  seized 
upon  and  considered  as  germs  of  the  implicit  faith.  These 
they  nurse  and  work  out  until  they  are  dovetailed  into  their 
whole  system,  and  exert  their  influence  on  the  religious  life 
of  the  Church.  And  when  the  development  has  reached  this 
point,  it  is  approved  by  the  pope  and  the  bishops,  and  pro- 
claimed to  the  world  as  a  new  dogma  of  explicit  faith. 

We  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  progress  of  development 
does  not  go  on  throughout  the  whole  body  of  the  Church,  but 
only  in  the  priesthood;  the  laity  have  no  part  in  it;  and 
even  among  the  priests  only  the  scholce  theologorum  are  the 
working  bees.  They  exert  an  immense  influence  on  the 
whole  doctrinal  system ;  in  a  certain  sense  they  are  the  soul 
of  the  teaching  body.  They  wield  the  weapons  of  defense, 
make  researches  into  the  opinions  of  the  fathers  and  doctors 
of  the  Church,  formulate  and  systematize  the  whole  body  of 
Roman  doctrine.  They  have  a  domain  of  their  own  into 
which  only  the  initiated  may  advance  and  progress;  their 
nomenclature,  phraseology  and  language  cannot  be  understood 
by  any  but  themselves. 

Hence  a  twofold  phenomenon  presents  itself  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  which  greatly  astonishes  outsiders.  The 
first  is,  that  the  belief  and  practice  of  the  masses  often  difier 
considerably  from  the  views  of  their  divines  and  school  men. 
No  wonder;  there  is  a  gulf  between  them.  Hence  the 
attacks  of  Protestants  on  popular  Romanism  are  looked  upon 
by  Roman  Catholic  theologians  and  the  champions  of  their 
faith  as  so  many  calumnies  against  their  Church,  so  many 
wici^ed  manifestations  ot  Protestant  i2;norance  and  bis;otry. 


Development  a  Consequence  of  InfalliUlity.     193 

On  this  account  the  Protestant  labours  under  great  disad- 
vantages when  he  enters  into  the  field  against  this  Church. 
If  he  attacks  the  Komanism  which  presents  itself  to  him, 
and  which  he  daily  perceives  living  in  the  masses,  they  tell 
him  that  he  fights  a  phantom  of  his  own  creation,  and  de- 
grades himself  by  slandering  their  Church.  If  he  criticises 
and  refutes  their  doctrines  as  contained  in  the  creeds,  defi- 
nitions, and  decrees  of  councils  and  popes,  they  cry  out  that 
he  does  not  understand  them,  that  he  does  not  know  even 
the  first  rudiments  of  the  phraseology,  language,  and  method 
of  the  scholce  theologorum,  which  alone  contain  the  key  to 
their  right  understanding.  And  if  he  attacks  the  teaching 
the  scholce,  they  will  inform  him  that  he  shoots  beyond  the 
mark,  that  the  teaching  of  the  scholce  is  not  exactly  the 
Church's  magisterium,  that  if  he  wants  to  attack  the  Church, 
he  must  go  to  creeds  and  councils.  In  fact,  the  Church  of 
Rome  is  too  slippery  for  an  honest  Protestant. 

The  second  phenomenon  is,  that  the  Roman  Catholic  laity 
live  in  blissful  ignorance  of  what  is  going  on  in  the  scholm, 
and  of  what  new  dogmas  are  in  process  of  development  and 
definition  by  the  pope  and  the  bishops.  They  may  awake 
some  fine  morning  with  a  new  dogma  saddled  on  theii'  patient 
consciences,  which  they  are  commanded  to  believe  under 
pain  of  excommunication  and  damnation.  How  often  during 
his  life-time  may  the  honest  layman  be  required  to  abandon 
cherished  opinions  for  new  dogmatic  definitions  added  to  his 
former  creed.  Twice  in  our  times,  within  the  short  period 
of  sixteen  years,  has  he  been  obliged  to  exercise  his  faith  by 
receiving  new  dogmas,  first,  that  of  the  immaculate  concep- 
tion, and  shortly  after,  that  of  papal  infallibility. 

As  the  working  of  this  system  of  development  is  exclusive- 
ly in  the  hands  of  the  priests,  it  is  but  natural  to  expect  that 

13 


•194  Roman  Catholicism. 

such  doctrines  are  principally  developed  which  favour  their 
caste.  It  was  by  this  method  of  procedure  that  the  doctrine 
of  a  sacrificing  priesthood,  with  its  many  kindred  dogmas, 
was  developed ;  in  a  similar  manner  the  papacy  had  its  rise  and 
took  firm  root  in  Western  Christendom. 

From  what  we  have  said  it  must  not  be  inferred  that  we 
are  altogether  opposed  to  development ;  nay,  we  admit  it,  but 
in  a  far  different  sense  from  that  of  the  Roman  system.  I  cannot 
explain  better  my  meaning  than  in  the  words  of  the  learned 
Abbe  Michaud,  the  great  champion  of  old  Catholicism,  in  an 
article  in  the  Hartford  Churchman  (vol.  xxxi.,  No.  16)  : — 

"It  is  evident  that  this  pretended  transition  from  the 
implicit  to  the  explicit  faith  is  nothing  else  but  the  complete 
confusion  of  theology  and  of  the  faith,  to  the  detriment  of  the 
latter  especially.  This  Romish  theory  is  false  and  it 
resembles  in  no  respect  the  notion  of  progress  in  the  faith, 
such  as  St.  Vincent  of  Lerins  explained  it  according  to  the 
doctrine  received  in  the  East  and  West,  before  the  great 
separation  of  the  ninth  century.  It  is  to  this  ancient  and 
really  catholic  notion  of  the  true  development  that  we  must 
return.  In  our  work  entitled  :  '  How  the  Roman  Church  is 
no  longer  the  Catholic  Church,'  we  have  explained  at  length, 
and  (we  believe)  as  clearly  as  possible,  what  Vincent  of 
Lerins'  idea  was.  The  Church,  at  that  eiDoch,  did  not  yet 
know  the  famous  theory  of  the  transition  from  the  implicit 
to  the  explicit.  It  admitted  no  progress  in  the  objective  faith 
by  a  material  addition  to  the  revealed  verities ;  it  only 
admitted  the  progress  in  the  subjective  faith,  by  progress 
in  the  subjective  knowledge  of  the  dogmas.  Assuredly,  this 
progress  in  the  subjective  knowledge  of  the  dogmas  placed 
them  in  a  greater  light,  and  in  this  regard  there  was  also 
progress  in  the  objective  faith.    But,  evidently,  this  progress 


5/ 

Development  a  Consequence  of  Infallibility,    195 

in  the  objective  faith  was  neither  a  material  alteration  nor  a 
numerical  amplification  of  the  truths  revealed  by  Jesus 
Christ  and  preserved  in  the  Universal  Church  ;  this  progress 
consisted  only  in  this,  that  the  understanding  became  more 
enlightened,  and  thus  comprehended  better  the  breadth  and 
depth  of  these  truths.  It  had  nothing  to  do  with  adding  one 
or  several  propositions  to  the  written  catalogue  of  the  truths 
of  the  faith ;  it  was  concerned  only  with  shedding  a  fuller 
and  stronger  light  in  the  souls  of  the  faithful,  a  light  leaving 
the  truths  of  the  faith  absolutely  the  same,  neither  changing 
nor  increasing  at  all,  but  rendering  them  more  visible  by  an 
augmentation  of  individual  light.  It  had  nothing  to  do  with 
seeing  the  revealed  truths  more  numerous  than  in  the  past  ; 
the  question  was  merely  to  see  them  better  enlightened  and 
more  radiant." 

"Understood  in  this  sense,  we  admit  dogmatic  development, 
as  our  fathers  of  the  first  centuries  did.  This  development, 
which  difiers  essentially  from  the  Romish  theory,  is  not  at  all 
dangerous,  because  it  is  founded  upon  religious  and  philoso- 
phical truth.  While  leaving  to  each  one  the  fullest  liberty 
in  the  territory  of  theology,  it  prevents  arbitrariness  in  the 
faith,  which  always  remains  what  it  is,  as  a  deposit  which 
one  can  neither  diminish  nor  augment,  but  which  one  can 
always  irradiate  by  means  of  the  sun  of  science,  so  as  con- 
tinually to  see  better  what  it  contains." 

"  Therefore,  just  as  the  false  dogmatic  development  is  based 
upon  the  confusion  of  the  faith  and  theology,  so  the  true 
dogmatic  development  is  based  upon  their  distinction  and 
upon  the  impossibility  of  transforming  the  latter  into  the 
former.  With  the  first,  bad  theology  becomes  likewise  bad 
faith,  and  we  see  it  only  too  much  in  the  Roman  Church, 
where  the  true  faith  is  as  rare  as  true  theology.     With  the 


196  Roman  Catholicism. 

second,  bad  theology  is  only  bad  theology  ;  it  can  hold  the 
true  faith  in  external  obscurity,  but  it  cannot  destroy  or 
corrupt  it  intrinsically.  The  essences  of  things  are  always 
preserved  on  both  sides,  in  this  sense.  The  true  faith  always 
remains  the  true  faith,  even  when  it  is  badly  explained 
theologically." 

We  agree  with  Abb6  Michaud's  views,  in  general ;  we 
observe  only  that  we  have  no  need  of  the  rule  of  St.  Vincent 
of  Lerins,  in  order  to  find  out  the  Catholic  faith.  We  can 
find  no  other  rule  of  true  catholicity  than  the  Bible  alone. 
To  this  standard  let  us  apply  the  theory  of  subjective  develop- 
mentj  so  beautifully  explained  by  the  learned  Old  Catholic 
Abbe.  • 


LECTUEE    VI. 

SACERDOTALISM :    ITS  CONNECTION   WITH   THE  IN- 
FALLIBILIT  Y-S  YSTEM. 

THERE  is  a  doctrine  pervading  the  Cliurcli  of  Rome  wliicL 
is  the  source  of  the  system  of  Church-infallibility  and 
papal  authority ;  a  doctrine  enslaving  the  laity  and  destroying 
their  rights  ;  a  doctrine  poisoning  the  current  of  all  spiritual 
life  ;  a  doctrine  leading  to  superstition,  and  even  to  idolatry  : 
in  a  word,  a  doctrine  disturbing  the  purity  of  the  gospel  and 
undermining  the  simple  structure  of  Christianity.  This 
doctrine  is  not  peculiar  to  the  Church  of  Rome ;  it  existed 
before  the  great  schism  between  the  East  and  West,  in  the 
ninth  century ;  all  the  Eastern  Churches  are  corrupted  by  it, 
and  alas  !  we  find  even  Protestant  ministers  professing  to 
teach  the  pure  gospel  of  Christ  tainted  with  it.  But  although 
others,  besides  Rome,  hold  this  baneful  doctrine,  in  the 
Roman  Church  alone  has  it  obtained  its  full  development  and 
finally  culminated  in  hierarchical  and  even  papal  infallibility. 

I  mean  sacerdotalism  or  priestism — the  doctrine  that  the 
Christian  ministry  is  a  real  priesthood.  What  does  this 
imply  ] 

In  the  first  place,  the  idea  of  mediatorship  between  God 
and  man  underlies  all  the  offices  of  the  priesthood.  The 
priest  not  only  teaches  with  authority  from  on  high,  but  also 
acts  for  and  on  behalf  of  the  people,  in  order  to  obtain  for 
them  God's  mercy  and  favour.  The  Roman  Catholic  priest 
is  believed  to  stand  between  the  people  and  God.     And  if 


198  Roman  Catholicism. 

we  tell  them  that  there  is  but  "  one  mediator  between  God 
and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,"  they  agree  that  Christ  is 
the  only  true  and  invisible  mediator,  but  they  add  that  the 
Church,  as  a  visible  body,  requires  visible  mediators,  and 
that  her  priests  fill  this  office  inasmuch  as  they  personify 
Christ — agunt  persona/m  Christi — act  in  His  stead  and  as  His 
visible  vice-gerents.  And  if  we  demand  proof  of  these  asser- 
tions, they  have  nothing  to  give  us  save  obscure  tradition  and 
the  teaching  of  their  infallible  Church. 

If  we  ask  them,  again,  in  what  sense  their  priests  are 
mediators,  they  inform  us  that  their  principal  mediatorial 
function  is  to  ofier  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  that  is,  of  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ,  both  for  the  living  and  the  dead.  If 
we  express  our  astonishment  at  such  a  doctrine,  by  observ- 
ing that  we  find  in  Scripture  that  Christ  ofiered  Himself 
onl^  once,  and  that  "  by  one  oblation  He  hath  perfected  for 
ever  them  that  are  sanctified  ;"  that  this  sacrifice  cannot  be 
repeated  and  that  Christ  Himself  was  the  High  Priest, — they 
evade  and  obscure  the  plain  teaching  of  Scripture  by  subtle 
answers  and  distinctions  that  are  above  the  understanding  of 
the  people,  and  are  therefore  not  calculated  to  remove  erro- 
neous impressions  from  the  mind. 

They  answer  :  True,  Christ  offered  Himself  only  once,  but 
that  was  in  a  bloody  manner  j  He  is  offered  on  our  altars  as 
an  unbloody  sacrifice — sacrificium  incruentum — His  sacrifice 
is  not  repeated.  He  does  not  often  suffer  nor  often  die  on  the 
altars,  but  He  continues  there  to  offer  to  His  eternal  Father 
the  sufferings  and  death  He  once  underwent  on  the  cross. 
His  very  presence  on  our  altars  is  a  continual  sacrifice  here 
on  earth,  as  His  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  God  is  a  con- 
tinual sacrifice  in  Heaven.  Nor  is  there  really  any  other 
priesu  but  Christ  Himself,  for  the  earthly  minister  is  priest 


Connection  of  Sacerdotalism  with  Infallibility.    199 

in  so  far  only  as  he  represents  Clirist  and  acts  in  His  person 
and  name  as  His  visible  vice-gerent  on  earth. 

It  would  seem  that  Roman  Catholics  do  not  understand 
the  real  nature  of  a  sacrifice.  Scripture  teaches  that  it  con- 
sists not  so  much  in  offering  anything  material  to  God,  but 
in  obedience,  which  results  in  self-denial  and  self-surrender 
and  in  divesting  ourselves  of  anything  that  is  dear  to  us, 
even  life  itself,  for  God's  sake  and  for  His  honour.  Hence 
we  are  taught  that  Christ's  sacrifice  consisted  in  His  obedi- 
ence, the  highest  act  of  which  was  His  complete  self- 
surrender,  which  resulted  in  giving  His  life  and  shedding 
His  blood  for  His  brethren,  the  fallen  sons  of  Adam.  And 
because  His  obedience  culminated  in  the  shedding  of  His 
blood,  it  obtained  for  us  remission  of  sins  j  for  "  without 
shedding  of  blood  is  no  remission."     (Heb.  ix.,  22.) 

Hence  the  Roman  Catholic  distinction  between  the  bloody 
and  unbloody  manner  in  which  Christ  is  ofiered,  not  only 
betrays  their  too  material  conception  of  His  sacrifice,  but 
ignores  also  the  scriptural  teaching  that  without  shedding  of 
blood  there  can  be  no  propitiatory  sacrifice. 

Nor  can  they  extricate  themselves  from  this  difficulty  l>y 
saying  that  their  mass  has  reference  to  the  shedding  of  blood 
on  the  cross.  How  so  1  By  being  a  memorial  of  the  death 
of  Christ '?  But  a  memorial  is  a  memorial,  and  merely  as  such 
does  not  possess  the  nature  of  a  propitiatory  sacrifice. 

They  assert  that  it  has  reference  to  Calvary  because  it 
is  the  same  victim  that  is  present  on  the  altars  and  continues 
to  ofier  Himself  We  deny  that  the  same  victim  is  present, 
but  shall  not  enter  here  into  a  discussion  on  the  real  presence. 
To  admit  such  a  doctrine  would  be  interpreting  Scripture 
literally  with  a  vengeance ;  it  would  be  a  palpable  trans- 
gression of  the  rules  of  exegesis  and  a  contradiction  of  the 


200  Roman  Catholicism. 

fundamental  principles  of  our  reason.  It  is  remarkable  tliat 
while  mediaeval  and  modern  councils  decree  the  doctrine  of 
the  real  presence,  and  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  we  do  not 
find  these  two  most  objectionable  doctrines  in  the  canon  of 
the  mass,  which  is  of  ancient  origin.  This  canon  may  be 
called  the  mass  itself,  and  is  daily  used  by  thousands  of 
priests,  and  may  be  conscientiously  used  as  a  communion 
service  by  Protestants  who  believe  neither  in  the  real  pre- 
sence nor  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass. 

Where  do  Roman  Catholics  find  that  Christ  continues  to 
ofier  Himself  on  the  altars  ?  Nowhere  in  Scripture.  How 
could  He  continue  His  sacrifice  on  the  cross  ?  Was  it  not 
an  act  ?  And  is  not  an  act  that  is  accomplished  a  thing  of 
the  2^cist  1  The  results  of  the  sacrifice  continue,  but  the  sacri- 
fice itself  was  finished  once  and  for  ever. 

Besides,  was  it  not  a  most  painful  act  ?  And  do  not  pain 
and  suffering,  or  at  least,  self-denial  in  some  shape  or  other 
constitute  the  very  nature  of  every  sacrifice?  However, 
therefore,  Roman  Catholics  may  abstract  the  idea  of  blood 
from  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  can  it  possibly  remain  a 
sacrifice,  if  they  dissociate  from  it  the  notion  of  suffering  also  % 
Does  Christ  still  suffer  and  undergo  the  self-denial  and  self- 
surrender  of  sacrifice  1  If  not,  how  can  He  be  a  sacrifice  ? 
The  mere  presence  of  the  glorified  Christ  could  never  make 
the  mass  a  real  and  actual  sacrifice. 

How,  again,  can  they  maintain  that  Christ  alone  is  the 
real  and  only  priest  of  the  mass,  if  they  teach  that  their  min- 
isters, too,  are  its  real  and  true  priests'?  Are  there  two 
priests  in  this  sacrifice,  Christ  and  the  earthly  priest  ?  And 
if  the  earthly  priests  are  many  in  number,  must  not  there  be 
many  unbloody  sacrifices,  too,  of  one  and  the  same  Christ,  in 
many  places,  at  one  and  the  same  time  ?     Where  do  they 


Connection  of  Sacerdotalism  with  Infallibility.    20l 

learn  in  Scripture  that  their  priest  acts  in  the  person  of  Christ 
and  as  His  visible  vice-gerent  ?  How  can  Christ  be  the 
priest,  when  the  Church  assigns  all  the  active  agency  in  the 
offering  of  this  sacrifice  to  the  officiating  priest,  for  the 
missal  asserts  that  the  intention  of  the  priest  is  indispensably 
necessary  to  the  consummation  of  this  sacrifice  of  the  mass, 
and  thus  makes  Christ  a  mere  passive  instrument  of  salvation, 
the  efficacy  of  which  depends  on  the  ca.price,  whim,  or  inten- 
tion of  a  fallible  priest  1 

As  there  is  no  other  sacrifice  but  that  of  Christ  under  the 
Christian  dispensation,  the  sacred  wi'iters  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment have  taken  especial  care  never  to  apj^ly  even  once  the 
name  of  'I'spEv;  or  sacrificing  priest  to  the  apostles  or  minis- 
ters of  Christ.  We  have  in  Eph.  iv.,  11,  an  enumeration  of 
the  various  offices  of  the  Christian  ministry,  but  the  name 
'I'spEvi  is  not  given  to  any  order  of  men,  nor  the  offering  of 
sacrifice  mentioned  as  any  part  of  the  duty  of  a  Christian 
minister. 

In  the  third  place,  the  office  of  the  priesthood,  in  the 
Roman  system,  is  essentially  connected  with  their  theory  of 
the  sacraments.  "No  priest,  no  sacrament,"  seems  to  be  their 
general  rule.  And  as  the  Church  of  Rome  is  sacramentarian, 
par  excellence,  this  connection  with  the  sacraments  gives  the 
priesthood  an  immense  power  and  influence  over  the  laity. 
She  teaches  that  a  sacrament  is  an  outward  and  visible  sign 
of  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace  given  unto  us  and  ordained 
by  Christ  as  a  means  whereby  we  receive  the  same  and  as  a 
pledge  to  assure  us  thereof ;  that  this  outward  sign  has  effi- 
cacy in  itself,  and  if  rightly  administered  produces  grace — 
ex  opere  operato. 

The  entire  religious  life  of  Roman  Catholics  is  interwoven 
•wifch  the  sacraments.     They  are  met  by  ohem  whithersoever 


202  Roman  Catholicism, 

they  turn.  Sacraments  accompany  them  fi-om  the  cradle  to 
the  grave.  They  have  seven  of  them.  Soon  after  they  are 
born,  the  water  of  baptism  cleanses  them  fi'om  original  sin, 
and  regenerates  them.  When  they  arrive  at  the  years  of 
discretion,  and  lose  their  baptismal  innocence  by  actual  sin, 
and  whenever  in  after-life  they  transgress  God's  command- 
ments, they  are  forgiven  by  auricular  confession  and  priestly 
absolution.  When  they  set  out  on  the  journey  of  life,  they 
are  taught  to  receive  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the  imposition  of 
the  bishop's  hands  in  the  sacrament  of  confirmation.  They 
are  exhorted  to  receive  frequently  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  in  the  sacrament  of  the  altar  j  and  they  believe  that 
the  priest  by  the  words  of  consecration  calls  Christ  down 
from  Heaven  and  changes  bread  and  wine  into  His  body  and 
blood.  They  not  only  receive  it  as  a  sacrament,  but  also 
worship  it  as  their  God  and  Saviour  j  they  keep  it  in  the 
tabernacle  of  their  altar  for  perpetual  adoration,  offer  to  it 
the  homage  of  incense,  have  lights  burning  before  it  day 
and  night,  carry  it  about  in  procession,  and  enclosing  it  in  a 
costly  repository,  impart  it  with  their  benediction  to  the 
people.  When  they  are  sick,  the  priest  administers  to  them 
the  sacrament  of  extreme  unction,  whereby  they  believe 
they  obtain  forgiveness  of  their  sins,  and  help  and  patience 
in  their  bodily  sickness.  They  receive  also  a  sacrament 
when  they  enter  the  state  of  matrimony,  or  are  ordained  to 
the  ministry  of  their  Church. 

Besides  these  seven  sacraments,  they  have  an  endless 
variety  of  other  sacred  things.  There  is,  indeed,  no  part  of 
the  Church's  life,  in  its  amazing  variety,  which  is  not  blessed 
and  consecrated  by  the  priesthood  in  some  external  rite  or 
ceremony.  In  fact,  they  believe  that,  as  since  Adam's  fall 
every  created  object  lies  under  the  curse  of  God,  the  priest 


Connection  of  Sacerdotalism  with  Infallibility.    203 

has  the  power  of  removing  this  curse  by  exorcisms,  and  of 
imparting  to  it  a  blessing  for  the  good  of  man.  These  rites 
and  ceremonies,  exorcisms  and  blessings,  consecrations  and 
dedications,  processions  and  pilgrimages,  holy  places  and 
shrines,  relics  and  miraculous  images,  religious  observances 
of  every  description,  scapulars,  holy  cords,  rosaries,  &c.,  &c., 
have  accumulated  in  the  Church  beyond  enumeration.  And 
to  every  one  of  these  things  a  peculiar  efficacy  is  ascribed  by 
the  priesthood  and  devoutly  believed  in  by  the  laity. 

What  does  all  this  mean?  It  means  sacerdotalism  or 
priestism.  History  teaches  that,  if  once  the  Christian  min- 
istry is  given  an  altar  with  power  to  sacrifice  thereon  the 
Crucified  Victim  of  Golgotha,  they  will  make  that  fictitious 
altar  and  illusory  power  the  centro  of  sacramentarianism. 

Read  E-oman  Catholic  treatises  on  the  sacraments,  and 
you  will  find  that  all  their  sacraments  finally  centre  in 
this  figment  of  an  altar.  And  if  you  once  admit  sacramen- 
tarianism, there  will  be  no  end  to  the  number  of  minor  reli- 
gious observances,  to  which  men  will  ascribe  a  certain 
material  efficacy  in  the  spiritual  life  of  the  soul.  All  these 
things  are  connected  with  each  other,  as  a  matter  of  course. 

But  further  still :  Sacerdotalism  cannot  possibly  exist 
without  a  high  degree  of  ritualism.  Around  that  fictitious 
altar  and  its  supposed  victim  are  gathered  all  the  afiections 
of  the  priesthood.  In  that  sacrificial  Church  the  Godhead  is 
believed  to  dwell  bodily,  and  on  that  account  the  sacred  edi- 
fice should  surpass,  if  possible,  even  the  temple  of  Solomon 
in  splendour  and  glory.  Before  that  altar  priests  and  people 
must  bow  and  prostrate  themselves,  for  there  they  believe 
that  the  Lamb  of  God  dwells,  who  was  slain  for  the  sins  of  the 
world.  Nothing  should  be  considered  too  precious  to  adorn 
that  altar  and  tabernacle,  in  order  to  remind  the  people  of 


204  Roman  Catholicism, 

the  presence  of  the  Lord.  Lights  should  be  lit,  and  incense 
burnt,  and  symbolic  ceremonies  performed.  It  should  be 
sensibly  felt  by  devout  members,  and  appear  manifest  even 
to  the  occasional  or  careless  observer,  that  here  indeed  the 
deep  mysteries  of  the  Christian  Church  are  celebrated.  They 
should  be  mysteries  indeed ;  not  all  that  is  going  on  in  the 
great  sacrifice  should  be  seen  by  the  people :  let  the  priest 
turn  his  back  to  them.  The  solemn  words  of  mysterious 
eiiicacy,  by  which  he  consecrates  and  offers  in  sacrifice  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  let  him  whisper  in  an  inaudible 
voice ;  and  when  the  mysterious  act  is  performed,  let  him 
elevate  the  host,  in  order  that  the  people  may  bow  down  and 
adore. 

And  should  the  priest  alone — the  actor  in  this  mysterious 
performance,  by  whose  powerful  words  the  great  change  is 
effected,  and  the  miracle  of  miracles  performed,  the  observed 
of  all  observers — should  he,  I  say,  remain  alone  unadorned, 
in  that  beautiful  church,  and  before  that  splendid  altar? 
Should  the  cloud  of  incense  be  his  only  sacrificial  garment  ? 
Impossible  !  Consequently  he  will  take  good  care  that  the 
gorgeous  splendour  of  his  sacerdotal  robes  surpasses  even  that 
of  the  high  priest  in  Solomon's  temple.  And  why  should  it 
not  1  What  comparison  is  there  between  him  and  the  Jew- 
ish high  priest  ?  Is  he  not  the  priest  of  a  more  perfect  dis- 
pensation— even  of  the  New  Covenant  ?  Is  not  his  victim, 
Christ  himself,  infinitely  higher  than  bulls  and  goats  1 

And  as  the  Jewish  high  priest  was  surrounded  in  his  sacri- 
ficial acts  by  his  assistant  priests  and  Levites,  why  should  the 
Christian  priest  be  without  his  deacons,  subdeacons,  acolytes, 
lectors,  thurifers,  exorcists,  and  other  sacred  clerics  ?  And 
why  should  not  these  officers,  too,  according  to  their  respec- 
tive dignities,  be  arrayed  in  splendid  apparel  ?     And  should 


Connection  of  Sacerdotalism  with  Infallibility.    205 

not  all  these  vestments,  both  of  pontiff,  priest,  and  assistants 
be  selected  with  taste,  and  have  a  symbolical  significance  % 
And  as  monotony  wearies,  they  should  vary  them  according 
to  the  different  seasons,  festivals,  and  other  sacred  occasions. 

How  glaringly  human  nature  manifests  itself  within  the 
sanctuary !  Dress  is  a  powerful  agent.  It  exercises  an 
insinuating  influence  both  on  the  wearer  and  beholder.  The 
tasty,  neat,  and  gorgeous  apparel  gives  pleasure  to  the 
priest,  and  diffuses  a  feeling  of  satisfied  importance  through 
his  soul.  And  the  attendant  worshippers,  what  of  them  % 
They,  too,  feel  pleased ;  they  look  upon  their  priest  attired 
in  his  gorgeous  sacrificial  vestments  as  a  superior  being  ;  the 
sacred  act  of  the  priest  surrounded  by  all  the  outward  splen- 
dour of  symbolism  and  art  impresses  them  with  a  feeling  of 
devotion — a  feeling,  I  say,  alas  !  it  is  nothing  more. 

Ritualism  is  not  only  an  essential  part  of  the  mass,  but  it 
enters  also  into  the  administration  of  all  the  sacraments  and 
other  religious  ordinances.  Yes,  everywhere  sacerdotalism 
is  followed  by  its  faithful  satellite,  ritualism  j  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  latter  is  meaningless  without  the  former. 
Ritualism,  so  far  as  history  teaches,  is  either  an  outgrowth 
01  sacerdotal  pride  and  vanity,  or  a  means  of  extending  the 
influence  of  the  priesthood. 

We  by  no  means  condemn  rites  and  ceremonies  promoting 
order  and  decency,  and  manifesting  true  taste ;  nor  do  we 
despise  symbols  that  speak  the  truth  and  make  it  impressive. 
But  we  condemn,  in  the  stron  ;  ..st  language,  the  ritualism 
that  prevails  in  the  Church  of  Rome  and  elsewhere,  even 
among  some  infatuated  Protestant  brethren.  Such  ritualism 
is  an  error ;  it  is  unreal,  and  symbolizes  unrealities.  It  is  a 
poison  that  has  penetrated  the  masses  of  the  Roman  Church, 
and  vitiated  their  spiritual  taste,  so  that  they  have  lost  all 


206  Roman  Catholicism, 

relish  for  evangelical  simplicity  and  purity.  Bitualism, 
which  has  become  part  and  parcel  of  their  nature,  is  one  of 
the  principal  fetters  that  keep  them  in  bondage  to  the  priest- 
hood. 

I  shall  not  speak  here  of  the  other  offices  and  features  of 
sacerdotalism,  as  they  do  not  come  directly  within  the  pur- 
pose of  these  lectures.  From  what  we  have  seen  we  have 
every  reason  to  detest  this  huge  system  of  unrealities  \  but 
whilst  we  abhor  the  system,  let  us  pity  those  who  are  en- 
snared by  the  seducing  delusion,  both  priests  and  people,  and 
let  us  teach  them  the  truth  in  love.  They  are  born  under 
it,  brought  up  in  it  from  their  very  infancy ;  and,  growing 
up  in  it,  it  has  become  a  second  nature  to  them.  We  do  not 
maintain  that  sacerdotalism  crept  into  the  Church  through 
artifice  and  design,  but  rather  through  ignorance.  It  is  an 
insidious  error  that  would  easily  insinuate  itself  into  the 
sacred  ministry  and  imperceptibly  adulterate  its  Christian 
character. 

The  student  of  Church-history  will  have  learned  that  it  was 
in  the  first  century  only  that  the  Christian  ministry  retained 
its  pure  and  simple  character.  As  unavoidable  circumstances 
brought  about  new  phases  in  the  government  of  the  Church, 
sacerdotalism,  with  its  satellite  ritualism,  made  its  appear- 
ance also ;  and  from  small  and  scarcely  perceptible  beginnings 
rapidly  grew  and  ripened  into  a  firmly  rooted  system. 

The  converts  to  the  Christian  religion  during  the  first 
three  centuries,  both  from  Judaism  and  Paganism,  knew  no 
other  religious  ministrations,  prior  to  entering  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  except  such  as  were  essentially  sacerdotal  and 
ritualistic.  They  brought  theii'  taste  for  sacerdotalism  with 
them  into  the  Church,  and  it  could  not  be  expected  that  they 
would  entirely  discard  it. 


Connection  of  Sacerdotalism  with  Infallibility.    207 

The  state  of  the  Church  soon  favoured  this  taste.  We 
find  that  the  Churches  were  at  first  independent  of  each 
other,  but  circumstances  soon  required  that  they  should 
associate  for  mutual  counsel  and  assistance.  These  associa- 
tions were  at  first  of  limited  extent,  comprising  at  the  most 
one  province;  but  the  princi2Jle  of  association  having  been  once 
introduced,  it  soon  extended  its  sphere  and  influence. 
Churches  met  in  synods,  and  these  [sent  their  delegates  to 
general  assemblies.  This  system  of  association  created 
new  offices,  and  gave  a  wider  jurisdiction  and  a  larger  field 
of  ambition  to  the  Christian  ministry.  And  this  we  believe 
was  one  of  the  reasons  why  the  clergy  of  the  second  century 
grew  less  watchful  against  the  inroads  of  that  sacerdotalism 
for  which  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  converts  had  an  innate 
taste. 

The  first  seeds  of  sacerdotalism  were  sown  by  the  Jewish 
converts ;  for,  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  dis- 
persion of  the  Jews,  it  became  their  settled  opinion,  in  which 
the  rest  of  the  members  soon  shared,  that  the  Christian 
Church  had  to  step  into  the  place  of  the  Jewish  Church 
and  hold  exactly  the  same  position  among  the  nations  of  the 
world.  Hence  the  difierent  offices  of  the  Christian  ministry 
were  considered  equivalent  to  those  of  the  Jewish  temple : 
the  bishop  holding  the  place  of  the  Jewish  high  priest,  the 
presbyter  or  elder  that  of  the  priest,  and  the  deacon  that  of 
the  Levite.  Thus  the  door  was  opened  to  sacerdotalism  ; 
henceforth  it  grew  rapidly ;  a  distance  between  clergy  and 
people  was  created  which  gradually  widened,  and  a  hierarchy 
was  planted  in  the  Christian  Church. 

After  these  first  steps  others  followed  as  a  matter  of  course, 
and  others  again  were  taken  through  the  ambition  of  an 
aspiring  clergy.     Not  content  with  merely  claiming  the  titles 


208  Roman   CatJiolicisnu 

of  the  Jewish  priesthood,  they  demanded  also  its  rights  and 
privileges,  such  as  tithes,  first-fruits,  distinctive  and  splendid 
garments,  and  other  evidences  of  external  grandeur.  And 
as  a  priesthood  cannot  exist  without  a  sacrifice,  they  sur- 
rounded the  Eucharist  with  all  sacrificial  rites  and  cere- 
monies and  thus  corrupted  the  simple  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  into  a  real  sacrifice,  commemorative  of  the  sacrifice 
of  the  cross. 

A  multitude  of  ceremonies  began  to  be  introduced  in 
the  second  century,  not  so  much  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
importance  to  the  priesthood  as  to  attract  both  Jews  and 
Gentiles  towards  the  Christian  Church,  and  to  refute  the 
calumnies  of  those  Gentiles  who  regarded  the  Christians  as 
atheists,  because  of  the  simplicity  of  their  worship.  The 
love  of  symbolism  and  the  symbolic  manner  of  teaching  pre- 
valent among  the  eastern  nations  was  also  a  fruitful  source 
of  rites  and  ceremonies. 

As  Christianity  progressed,  rites  and  customs  in  use 
among  the  Gentiles,  were  gradually  blended  with  the  Chris- 
tian worship,  and  of  the  penitential  discipline  much  was  bor- 
rowed from  the  heathen  mysteries,  so  that  Christian  ordin- 
ances themselves  became  known  by  the  name  of  mysteries. 

If  such  was  the  increase  of  sacerdotalism  whilst  paganism 
held  sway  in  the  vast  Koman  empire,  we  cannot  be  surprised 
at  its  undisputed  dominion  when  Constantine  embraced  Chris- 
tianity and  gave  to  it  his  influence.  He  and  his  successors 
made  over  the  Koman  pontificate  with  its  sacerdotalism  to 
the  Christian  Church.  Henceforth  sacerdotalism  had  its  own 
way ;  the  lay  element  was  lost ;  the  priesthood  became  the 
Church  \  the  pomp  of  public  worship  gave  it  importance  ;  and 
its  ambition  knew  no  bounds.  The  arrogance  of  the  bishop 
of  Rome  was  finally  the  cause  of  the  schism  between  the 


Connection  of  Sacerdotalism  with  Infallibility.    209 

East  and  the  West.  The  bishop  of  the  seven  hills  was  ac- 
knowledged by  western  Christendom  as  its  high  priest,  wear- 
ing the  Urim  and  Thummim  of  supreme  priestly  authority 
and  jurisdiction.  New  elements  were  added  to  sacerdota- 
lism by  this  high  priest  and  his  faithful  allies,  the  monks. 
Darkness  began  to  reign  in  the  Church,  and  the  history  of 
Europe  became  the  history  of  sacerdotalism. 

Study  the  history  of  Christian  sacerdotalism  from  its  be- 
ginnings down  to  our  own  day,  and  you  cannot  help  being 
pained  at  its  unreality  and  untruth,  disgusted  with  its  pre- 
tensions, horrified  at  its  excesses,  and  saddened  by  the  con- 
templation of  its  baneful  consequences.  It  presents  to  us  the 
picture  of  a  spiritual  despotism,  blighting  everything  beneath 
its  sway.  It  has  impeded,  nay  almost  destroyed,  the  fair 
Christianity  of  Christ. 

Alas  !  my  heart  is  overwhelmed  with  sadners,  when  I  re- 
flect that  among  my  Protestant  brethren  there  are  men  who 
in  their  heart  of  hearts  love  sacerdotalism,  would  rejoice  to 
see  it  re-established  among  us  and  employ  their  best  talents 
and  energies  in  promoting  its  growth.  It  has  been  planted 
within  our  borders;  but  it  is,  as  yet,  a  feeble  and  sickly 
plant.  How  carefully  these  men  nurse  it !  They  watch 
over  it ;  desire  to  have  it  left  alone ;  gijard  it  against 
rough  handling;  protect  it  from  every  blast  of  con- 
troversy. And  what,  in  the  name  of  all  that  is  good  and 
Christian,  do  these  dear  brethren  purpose  %  Do  they  wish  to 
re-establish  popery?  By  no  means.  They  are  conversant 
with  Church  history,  and  know  that  sacerdotalism  is  not  ex- 
clusively Roman,  that  it  prevails  in  all  the  eastern  churches, 
and  existed  in  the  Church  before  Romanism  was  dreamt  of. 
They  glory  in  being  Catholics,  and  are  determined  to  hold 
everything  that  is  Catholic,  and  they  believe  in  a  Christian 

11 


210  Roman  Catholicism. 

sacerdotalism  because  they  think  it  is  Catholic.  Such  is  the 
mildest  construction  I  can  put  on  their  sacerdotal  aspirations. 
In  all  charity,  I  hope  none  of  them  is  animated  by  sacerdotal 
vanity  and  ambition;  for  to  such  my  remarks  will  prove  useless. 
Does  it  never  strike  them  that  nothing  can  be  truly  catholic 
unless  it  is  contained  in  the  Bible,  or  can  clearly  be  proved 
thereby  and  was  held  in  apostolical  times ;  otherwise  the 
principle,  quod  semper,  uhique  et  ah  omnibus  creditum  est 
would  be  inapplicable.  Now  sacerdotalism  is  not  con- 
tained in  the  apostolical  writings,  and  its  seeds  were  only 
sown  towards  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century.  It  is, 
therefore,  evidently  uncatholic.  And  although  it  be  not  ex- 
clusively Roman  being  professed  by  the  greater  part  of  Chris- 
tendom, let  them  remember  that  it  produced  the  papacy  and 
Eomanism  together  with  the  monstrous  doctrine  of  infalli- 
bility and  its  associate  errors. 

And  if  they  say  that  it  existed  in  the  Church  ever  since 
she  had  a  history,  and  that  it  is  therefore  part  and  parcel  of 
the  historic  Church,  we  answer  that  we  also  believe  in  a 
historic  Church,  and  a  historic  Christianity,  but  we  know 
also  that  in  the  historic  Church  there  are  historic  errors — 
errors  that  have  played  a  conspicuous  part  in  the  Church's 
history.  Are  they  to  be  believed  as  truths  because  they  are 
historical  ?  Is  their  being  historical  a  proof  of  their  being 
catholic  also  ?  Is  sacerdotalism  to  be  embraced  because  it 
has  a  long  and  conspicuous  history  %     God  forbid. 

Let  us  rather  go  back  to  first  principles ;  for  they  are 
always  catholic.  Let  us  walk  in  the  old  paths  where  we  are 
taught  that  we  have  aA  altar,  but  that  altar  is  Christ ;  that 
we  have  a  sacrifice,  but  that  sacrifice  is  Christ ;  that  we 
have  a  high  priest,  but  that  high  priest  is  Christ.  Any  other 
altar,  sacrifice,  or  priest  can  be  only  fiction  and  unreality. 


Part  III. 


TUB  PAPACY  AND  INFALLIBILITY. 


LECTURE    I. 

TEE  PRIMACY  OF  PETER. 

THE  papacy  is  the  outgrowth  of  sacerdotalism,  and  the 
result  of  that  Roman  development  which  consists  in 
addition  and  amplification.  If  you  recognize  a  priesthood, 
you  must  have  a  high  priest  also.  Hence  the  bishop  of 
Rome,  favoured  by  circumstances,  put  the  coping-stone  on 
the  sacerdotal  edifice,  by  laying  claim  to  the  highest  priestly 
dignity,  and  assuming  the  title  of  pontifex  maximus — a 
familiar  dignity  in  the  imperial  city  and  one  so  highly  hon- 
oured that  the  emperors  invested  themselves  with  it  and  per- 
formed its  offices,  in  pagan  times.  When  they  embraced 
Christianity,  it  was  conferred  on  the  bishop  of  the  metropolis 
of  the  world,  who  knew  but  too  well  how  to  use  it  for  the 
development  of  his  high-priestism  and  the  aggrandizement 
of  his  power. 

Not  only  priestism,  but  also  the  system  of  clerical  aristoc- 
racy, or,  as  it  is  usually  called,  high-churchism,  seems  logically 
to  tend  to  popery,  either  avowedly  or  in  efiect.  In  making  this 
remark  we  have  no  particular  Church  in  view;  but  we 
mean  the  high-churchism  manifesting  itself  in  every  denomi- 
nation. It  appears  to  us  evident — and  experience  confirms 
our  opinion — that  men  of  high  clerical  pretensions  feel 
naturally  prone  to  aim  higher  and  higher,  until  at  last  they 
concentrate  the  supreme  spiritual  power  in  one  ecole« 
siastical  dignitary.     High  churchism  is  antagonistic  to  the 


214  Roman  Catholicism, 

rights  and  privileges  of  the  laity  ;  how  then  can  men  enam- 
oured with  it  avoid  sympathizing  with  popery  which  is  high- 
churchism,  far  excellence, — the  culminating  point  of  sacerdo- 
talism ?  Both  sacerdotalists  and  extreme  High  Churchmen 
cannot  but  admire  the  ecclesiastical  system  of  Kome  as  coin- 
ciding with  their  own  particular  views  and  aims ;  they  only 
hate  its  abuses  and  excesses.  If  Eome  gave  up  her  claim 
to  infallibility  and  submitted  to  salutary  reforms,  they  would 
find  no  difficulty  in  joining  her.  Even  as  it  is,  with  all  her 
glaring  errors,  many  have  not  hesitated  to  enter  the  E-oman 
communion. 

Let  any  one  pause  and  reflect  before  he  regards  with  favour 
the  system  of  the  papacy.  The  pretensions  of  the  pope  are 
exorbitant.  He  claims  to  have  supreme  ecclesiastical  juris- 
diction over  the  whole  Chui'ch,  exercising  immediate  episco- 
pal authority  in  all  the  dioceses.  This  authority  embraces 
the  power  to  convoke  general  synods  at  his  pleasure,  to  pre- 
side over  them,  and  to  confirm  or  veto  their  decrees  and  defini- 
tions ;  to  decide  controversies  of  faith  and  to  define  doctrines 
authoritatively,  even  without  consulting  the  Church ;  to 
enact  and  establish  ecclesiastical  laws  and  canons  or  to  abro- 
gate them  at  pleasure  ;  to  fulminate  excommunications  and 
inflict  other  ecclesiastical  censures,  and  to  relax  them  by 
indulgences  and  pardons  ;  to  void  promises,  vows,  oaths,  and 
legal  obligations  by  dispensation  ;  to  be  the  fountain  of  all 
pastoral  jurisdiction  and  dignity;  to  erect,  transfer,  and  abol- 
ish episcopal  sees ;  to  appoint,  confirm,  suspend,  or  remove 
bishops ;  to  exempt  colleges,  monasteries,  or  whomsoever  he 
wishes  from  episcopal  jurisdiction  and  oversight ;  to  confer 
dignities  and  benefices  by  his  sole  authority ;  to  judge  all 
persons  in  all  spiritual  causes,  finally  and  irrevocably ;  to 
receive  appeals  from  all  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  to  reverse 


The  Primacy  of  Peter.  215 

their  decisions ;  to  exact  oaths  of  fealty  and  obedience  from 
the  clergy ;  to  have  supreme  supervision  over  the  civil  laws 
of  every  country,  and  to  forbid  the  faithful  to  observe  such 
of  them  as  appear,  in  his  opinion,  to  conflict  with  the  rights 
of  the  Church  j  to  demand  absolute  obedience  to  his  will 
from  all  members  of  the  Church  j  to  depose  kings  and 
magistrates  and  absolve  subjects  from  the  oath  of  allegiance. 
In  short,  he  claims  absolute  and  unlimited  authority  to  regu- 
late everything  in  the  Church,  both  generally  and  individ- 
ually ;  he  is  the  source  of  all  law  and  authority ;  and  finally, 
he  is  the  sole  judge  of  the  limits  of  his  jurisdiction.  He  is 
the  absolute  monarch  of  the  whole  Church,  accountable  to 
none  but  God, — exempt  from  judgment  and  liable  to  no 
reproof.  Hq  is  the  Church.  He  is  believed  to  be  infallible 
when  he  speaks  ex  cathedra.  He  is  called  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  the  Vicar  of  Christ,  Our  Lord  the  Pope,  Most  Holy 
Father,  dec,  (Ssc. 

Such  an  authority  has  no  precedent  in  human  history. 
Never  on  earth  before  has  mortal  and  sinful  man  put  forth 
universal  claims  like  these  to  supreme  control  over  the  con- 
sciences of  his  fellow-men.  We  are,  therefore,  justified  in 
requiring  him  to  show  the  title-deeds  of  this  overwhelming 
authority ',  for  they  ought  certainly  to  be  clear  and  indis- 
putable. 

They  tell  us  that  the  pope  exercises  supreme  jurisdiction 
because  he  is  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  as  such,  successor  of  St. 
Peter  who  received  this  authority  from  Christ  and  bequeathed 
it  to  his  successors. 

The  supreme  authority  of  the  pope,  therefore,  presup- 
poses : — 

1.  That  St.  Pefcer  had  a  supremacy  of  jurisdiction  over  the 
Apostles  and  the  whole  Church, 


216  Roman  Catholicism. 

2.  That  this  primacy  was  not  personal,  but  communicable 
to  his  successors. 

3.  That  St.  Peter  was  bishop  of  Rome. 

4.  That,  dying  whilst  bishop  of  Rome,  he  left  to  his  suc- 
cessors in  that  see  for  all  time  to  come  the  supremacy  which 
he  had  received  from  the  Lord. 

Let  us  briefly  consider  these  suppositions  and  see  if,  as 
papal  title-deeds,  they  are  clear  and  irrefragable. 

If  one  or  the  other  be  found  unproven,  the  whole  system  o^ 
the  papacy  falls  to  the  ground.  I  take  this  opportunity  of 
recommending  to  your  careful  study  Dr.  Barrow's  excellent 
"  Treatise  of  the  Pope^s  Supremacy."  I  believe  it  to  be  so  com- 
plete and  thorough  that  it  must  convince  any  impartial  reader 
of  the  utter  untenability  of  papal  claims. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  can  it  be  proved  from  Scripture 
that  our  Lord  conferred  on  St.  Peter  a  supreme  power  of 
jurisdiction  over  the  Apostles  and  the  whole  Church  ?  As 
such  an  authority  would  be  of  the  highest  importance,  it 
should  be  conferred  in  the  clearest  terms  and  distinctly 
recognized  both  by  Peter  and  the  other  Apostles. 

The  principal  argument  which  is  adduced  to  warrant  and 
prove  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter,  is  drawn  from  the  words 
addressed  by  Christ  to  him,  when  he,  first  of  all,  confessed 
him  to  be  the  Son  of  the  living  God:  "Thou  art  Peter,  and 
upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church ;  and  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee 
the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven ;  and  whatsoever  thou 
shalt  bind  on  earth,  shall  be  bound  in  Heaven ;  and  whatso- 
ever thou  shalt  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed  in  Heaven." 
(Matt,  xvi.,  18.) 

Christ  employs  here  the  metaphor  of  a  rock  which  may  be, 
and  has  been,  differently  interpreted  by  the  most  eminent 


The  Primacy  of  Peter.  217 

fathers  and  biblical  scholars — some  being  of  opinion  that  this 
rock  is  Peter,  others,  that  it  is  Christ,  others  again,  that  it  is 
the  confession  of  faith  which  Peter  made.  We  find  none  of 
the  ancients  strictly  interpreting  it  of  the  primacy  of  St. 
Peter,  as  understood  by  the  Church  of  Rome.  Why,  then, 
should  anyone  be  obliged,  even  according  to  the  Roman 
Catholic  rule  of  interpretation — which  requires  them  to  in- 
terpret Scripture  in  conformity  with  the  universal  consent 
of  the  fathers — why  should  anyone  be  compelled,  I  say,  to  in- 
terpret these  words  in  the  papal  sense,  when  so  many  learned 
and  pious  men  have  interpreted  them  in  a  difi*erent  sense  "J 
With  what  reason  can  they  pretend  that  meaning  to  be 
clear,  which  fathers  and  doctors  did  not  perceive  or  even 
suspect  % 

Can  it  be  supposed  that  our  Lord  would  have  conferred 
the  title-deeds  of  siich  a  stupendous  inheritance  on  St.  Petei 
in  metaphors  which  are  naturally  ambiguous  and  admit  of 
diverse  interpretations'?  Would  not  such  a  proceeding, 
instead  of  building  up  the  Church  on  stable  foundations,  be 
like  throwing  the  apple  of  discord  into  her  precincts  for  all 
future  generations  %  Are  not  those  who  compel  men  thus  to 
interpret  these  words  guilty  of  dividing  the  Church  % 

Certainly,  the  other  Apostles  and  disciples  did  not  under- 
stand them  in  the  Roman  sense.  How  is  it  that  St.  Mark, 
the  intimate  friend  of  St.  Peter,  drops  them  altogether  out 
of  his  nan'ative  when  relating  the  same  conversation  %  Be- 
cause the  object  of  that  dialogue  was  to  establish  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  not  the  supremacy  of  Peter.  Would  the  Apostles, 
shortly  after,  have  contended  among  themselves  (Mark  ix., 
33-37  ;  X.,  35-45)  for  the  chief  place,  if  they  had  understood 
these  words  as  conferring  supreme  authority  on  St.  Peter  ? 
Would  the  fc)0nb  of  Zebedee  also,  a  few  da^ti  after,  have  beeii 


218  Roman  Catholicism, 

so  foolish  and  presumptuous  as  to  beg  the  chief  place  in  His 
kingdom  if  they  knew  that  Christ  had  promised  it  already  to 
Peter  %  Would  Peter  himself  have  disputed  with  the  other 
Apostles  about  the  first  position  in  the  Church,  if  he  had 
understood  that  Christ,  by  these  words,  had  promised  to 
make  him  her  head?  Would  Christ  Himself  not  have 
explained  the  metaphor,  as  he  did  on  other  occasions,  when 
He  found  them  disputing  among  themselves  %  Would  He 
not  have  told  them  plainly,  in  order  to  obviate  any  future 
misunderstanding,  that  Peter  was  to  be  His  vice-gerent? 
But  instead  of  this,  He  exhorts  them  to  humility,  plainly 
giving  them  to  understand  that  He  would  have  no  supreme 
lord  and  viceroy  in  His  Church. 

Metaphors,  in  general,  may  be  interpreted  in  different 
senses,  and  each  interpretation  may  be  correct  at  the  same 
time,  but  under  different  aspects.  So  here,  whether  Christ, 
or  Peter,  or  his  confession  of  faith  be  meant  by  the  rock,  a 
beautiful  meaning  is  the  result,  in  each  case.  But  we  have 
to  do  here  principally  with  Peter. 

If  Peter  be  meant  by  the  rock,  the  words  heing  a  rock  can- 
not mean  government,  for  governing  the  Church  supposes  it 
already  built  and  established.  The  Church  must  first  exist 
before  she  can  be  governed.  Indeed,  what  similitude  is  there 
between  a  rock  and  government  ?  At  least,  there  are  much 
fairer  explanations  of  the  metaphor  than  this.  Peter  may 
be  called  a  rock  because  on  his  faith,  his  witness-bearing, 
preaching,  holy  life,  and  miraculous  actions  the  Church  was 
built,  as  it  was  also  on  the  other  Apostles,  according  to  the 
words  of  St.  Paul,  who  declares  that  the  Church  is  "  built 
on  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles  and  prophets,  Christ  Him- 
self being  the  chiei  corner-stone."     (Ephes.  ii.,  20.) 

Ix  iloman  Catholics  would  interpret  Scripture  by  Scrip- 


The  Primacy  of  Peter.  219 

ture  and  exclude  all  special  pleading  in  favour  of  a  supreme 
jurisdiction  conferred  on  St.  Peter,  they  would  clearly  per- 
ceive that  he  received  no  power  which  was  peculiar  to  him 
alone,  and  superior  to  that  bestowed  upon  the  other  Apostles. 
If  he  was  a  rock,  so  were  they,  for  on  them,  also,  the  Church 
was  built.  If  he  received  the  keys,  so  did  they ;  for  they 
also  had  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing.  If  he  had  the 
office  of  feeding  the  lambs  and  sheep,  so  was  it  made  their 
duty  to  feed  the  flock. 

Nor  can  they  gain  any  special  advantage,  for  the  Petrine 
primacy,  by  saying  that  Christ  addressed  these  words  to 
Peter  alone.  The  conversation  was  a  dialogue  between  Peter 
and  Christ ;  Peter  alone  made  the  confession  that  He  was 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God ;  it  was,  therefore, 
necessary  and  proper  that  to  him  Christ  should  address  Him- 
self. But  as  Peter  is  usually  the  spokesman  of  the  twelve 
Apostles,  so  here  we  must  suppose  that  he  made  his  glorious 
confession  in  the  name  of  all,  and  that  Christ's  promise  was 
intended  for  all. 

We  must  not  take  this  promise  out  of  its  connection  with 
Peter's  confession.  He  had  been  called  a  rock  before,  when 
he  was  summoned  to  the  Apostleship ;  nay,  the  use  of  the 
name  was  equivalent  to  an  Apostolic  commission,  for  upon 
the  Apostles,  as  upon  rocks,  the  Church  was  to  be  built.  He 
is  not  called,  either  in  this  text,  or  foi-merly,  the  rock,  but  a 
rock,  one  of  the  rocks — the  other  Apostles  being  his  fellows. 
Christ,  now,  gives  the  reason  why  he  had  received  this  name, 
or,  in  other  words,  why  he  had  been  called  to  the  Apostle- 
ship :  it  was  because  he  confessed  his  faith  in  the  grand  and 
fundamental  truth  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God.  We  may  thus  paraphrase  Christ's  words  :  "  Yea,  thou 
art  truly  a  rock,  and  upon  such  a  rock,  upon  men  oi  such 


220  Roman  Catholicism. 

faith,  I  will  build  my  Church.  It  was  on  account  of  thy 
faith  that  I  called  thee  a  rock  and  made  thee  part  of  its  founda- 
tion, i.  e.f  an  Apostle  of  my  Church  ;  for  so  long  as  it  is  built 
upon  such  a  creed,  the  gates  of  hell  cannot  prevail  against 
it."  The  whole  tenor  of  the  dialogue  is  about  the  confession 
of  faith  in  the  divinity  of  Christ ;  the  rest  is  merely  inci- 
dental and  gives  the  reason  for  Peter's  call  to  the  Apostle- 
ship.  That  this  faith  is  the  great  object  Christ  had  in  view 
may  not  only  be  inferred  from  the  concluding  words  of  the 
discourse  where  He  ''  charged  His  disciples  that  they  should 
tell  no  man  that  He  was  Jesus  the  Christ,"  but  also  from  the 
fact  that  St.  Mark,  the  companion  and  friend  of  St.  Peter, 
omits  altogether  the  subordinate  reference  to  his  being  a 
rock.  And  as  the  other  Apostles  had  the  same  faith,  they 
were  also  rocks,  that  is,  foundations  on  which  Christ  built 
His  Church. 

Nor  can  any  conclusion  in  favour  of  Peter's  primacy  be 
drawn  from  the  other  metaphor  used  in  this  text :  "I  will 
give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven."  In 
order  to  understand  the  figure,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that 
oriental  keys  were  dissimilar  to  ours  ;  their  use  re- 
quired binding  and  loosing.  Hence  the  following  words : 
"  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in 
Heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be 
loosed  in  Heaven,"  signified  the  general  use  of  the  keys. 

We  see  here  a  gradation  in  the  discourse  of  Christ.  In 
the  first  part,  the  Church  is  to  be  built  on  such  a  rock ;  in 
the  second,  it  is  supposed  to  have  been  built,  and  the  keys  of 
it  are  promised  to  Peter.  Now,  whatever  the  keys  may 
mean,  whether  the  faculty  of  opening  the  Church  by  preach- 
ing or  admitting  into  it  by  baptism,  or  excluding  from  it  by 
ecclesiastical  censures,  or  any  other  power,  they  were  given 


The  Primacy  of  Peter.  221 

by  Christ  to  all  the  Apostles,  and  in  the  very  same  words  in 
Matt,  xviii.,  18.  Peter,  therefore,  in  receiving  the  keys,  re- 
ceived no  power  peculiarly  his  own,  or  superior  to  that 
of  the  other  apostles.  If  he,  therefore,  by  the  keys,  received 
supreme  spiritual  power,  so  did  they. 

Some  Roman  Catholics,  in  their  special  anxiety  to  establish 
Peter's  primacy,  insist  that  the  words  addressed  to  him  are 
more  general  than  those  addressed  to  the  other  Apostles,  and 
that  therefore  his  power  embraces  theirs.  To  Peter  he  says 
quodcunque  Co  'eaV)  ligaveris,  to  the  others  qiocecwique  "o6a 
'sav)  ligaveritis — the  quodcunque  is  more  general  than  the 
quoecunque.  Moreover,  they  say,  the  power  of  the  keys  was 
given  to  the  other  Apostles  unitedly, — in  gloho — they  had  to 
be  divided,  therefore,  and  to  each  one  the  projDer  sphere  of 
his  labours  and  powers  assigned ;  and  by  whom  should  this 
be  done  but  by  Peter  ? 

We  answer,  that  the  philological  rule  that  the  singular  is 
more  general  than  the  plural  is  new  to  us.  When  Christ 
conferred  the  power  of  the  keys  on  all  the  Apostles  together, 
he,  as  a  matter  of  course,  used  the  plural — 'o'6a  ''eolv —  but 
this  "060L  'eoCv  contains  "o  'eaV  as  many  times  as  there  were 
persons  addressed.  To  us  it  seems  that  we  ought  to  reverse 
the  alleged  philological  rule.  Secondly,  there  was  no  need 
of  any  one  who  should  authoritatively  assign  to  each  of  the 
other  Apostles  a  particular  sphere  for  the  exercise  of  their 
power  of  the  keys.  They  were  Apostles,  and  as  such  not  con- 
fined to  any  local  Church  or  Churches  \  they  could  preach 
and  labour  wherever  they  liked,  provided,  as  St.  Paul  says, 
(Rom.  XV.,  20),  *'  they  did  not  preach  the  Gospel  where  Christ 
was  named,  lest  they  should  build  upon  another  man's  foun- 
dation." Surely,  it  cannot  be  maintained  that  St.  Peter 
could   exercise  the   power   of  the   keys  in    respect  to  the 


222  Roman  Catholicism, 

Apostles ;  for  how  could  he  open  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  unto 
those  who  had  long  before  been  admitted  into  it  by  our  Lord 
himself  1  And  if  he  could  not  possibly  exercise  this  power 
in  the  case  of  the  Apostles,  over  whom  could  he  use  it? 

From  the  fact  that  Christ  addressed  these  words  first  to 
Peter,  they  argue  that  he  received  a  superior  power.  But 
this,  again,  is  special  pleading.  Probably,  our  Lord  said  first 
to  him,  "  Fear  not,  from  henceforth  thou  shalt  catch  men ;" 
might  it  not  hence  be  inferred,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  that 
he  had  a  peculiar  and  personal  commission  to  catch  men  % 

Again,  the  endeavour  is  made  to  prove  the  supremacy  of 
St.  Peter  over  the  other  Apostles  from  the  words  addressed 
to  him  by  Christ,  after  His  resurrection,  at  the  sea  of  Tibe- 
rias, "  Feed  my  lambs  j  feed  my  sheep." 

We  believe  that  these  words,  far  from  exalting  Peter, 
were  calculated  to  humble,  to  teach  humility,  and  to  renew 
in  him  the  salutary  feeling  of  a  loving  repentance.  You  will 
perceive  the  force  of  this  observation,  if  you  reflect  that  only 
a  few  days  had  elapsed  since  he  had  thrice  shamefully  denied 
his  Lord.  On  that  mournful  occasion  he  had  shown  that  he 
was  not  a  rock  on  which  the  Church  could  be  built.  He  would 
almost  appear  to  have  forfeited  all  claim  to  Apostleship. 
True,  he  had  repented  and  obtained  forgiveness  of  his  sin  j 
but  might  he  not,  again,  trust  too  much  in  his  presumptuous 
nature,  and  relapse  ?  On  that  account  our  Lord  seems  to 
have  intended  to  make  his  call  peculiarly  impressive  to  him, 
so  that  he  might  never  forget  it  in  after-life,  it  was,  there- 
fore, on  that  very  sea  of  Tiberias,  probably  at  the  very  spot 
where  he  had  first  been  called  and  received  the  title  of 
rock,  that  our  Lord  appeared  to  him,  after  His  resurrection, 
when  he  was  engaged  in  his  original  avocation.  Many 
thinsfs  had  hauuened  since  his  first  call  at  that  very  place. 


The  Primacy  of  Peter.  223 

He  had  denied  his  Lord ;  the  rest  of  the  Apostles  had  not.  It 
behoved  him  therefore  not  merely  to  repent  as  he  had  already 
done,  but  to  give  assurances  of  his  love.  Hence,  Christ 
asked  him  thrice  "  Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  me  more 
than  these  T  as  if  to  remind  him  of  his  threefold  denial.  He 
does  not  call  him  Peter  or  rock,  but  simply  Simon,  son  of 
Jonas,  the  name  he  bore  previous  to  his  first  call  to  the 
Apostleship.  And  after  having  been  assured  thrice  of  his 
love,  he  gives  him  the  commission  to  feed  His  flock,  and 
makes  him  again  a  rock,  i.  e.,  a  foundation  of  His  Church. 
Thus,  instead  of  being  a  fresh  exaltation  to  a  primacy  over 
the  other  Apostles,  this  scene  by  the  lake  of  Tiberias  was  in- 
tended to  make  his  Apostolical  call  for  ever  impressive  to 
him.  We  cannot  see  how  the  words  of  this  text  can  pos- 
sibly be  made  the  basis  of  an  argiiment  for  the  primacy. 
They  are  indefinite  \  we  cannot  therefore,  deduce  from  them 
a  definite  conclusion.  "  Feed  thou  my  sheep,"  does  not 
mean,  ''Feed  thou  alone,  either  personally  or  by  agents,  all 
my  sheep."  Yet,  this  meaning  they  must  have,  if  they  are 
construed  so  as  to  indicate  Peter's  appointment  as  the 
supreme  shepherd.  Did  the  Apostles  need  to  be  fed  by 
Peter  %  Were  they  not  immediately  taught  and  guided  by 
God  Himself? 

It  is  evident  that  these  words  create  no  new  authority 
superior  to,  and  distinct  from,  the  Apostleship.  Peter  here 
received  no  new  power,  diflerent  from  that  which  he, 
together  with  the  other  Apostles,  had  received  a  little  before, 
when  our  Lord  gave  them  their  Apostolical  commission, 
breathing  on  them  and  saying :  "  As  my  Father  hath  sent 
Me,  even  so  send  I  you."  This  solemn  authority  included 
the  feeding  of  the  flock  and  all  other  powers. 

Nor  could  St.  Peter's  charge  be  more  extensive  than  that 


224  Roman  Catholicism. 

of  the  other  Apostles ;  they  all  had  a  general  and  unlimited, 
care  of  the  whole  flock,  according  to  their  capacity  and  oppor- 
tunities. None  of  them  was  confined  to  a  local  bishopric ;  the 
very  nature  of  their  Apostleship  excluded  limits. 

These  are  the  principal  texts  which  Roman  Catholics 
adduce  for  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter.  But  their  special  plead- 
ing appears  to  be  inexhaustible.  It  is  astonishing  to  observe 
how  they  twist  and  turn  everything  referring  to  Peter  into 
an  argument  for  his  supreme  authority.  In  every  incident 
of  his  life,  in  every  action  performed  by  him,  they  fancy 
they  discern  some  manifestation  of  his  pre-eminence.  It 
betokens  the  weakness  of  their  case ;  but  we  shall  not  lose 
time  in  following  them  in  their  inconclusive  argumentation. 

We  find,  indeed,  no  trace  of  a  primacy  in  the  whole  New 
Testament.  If  such  an  office  had  been  instituted,  it  would 
have  been  distinctly  mentioned,  and  a  distinct  name  would 
have  been  given  it.  All  the  other  sacred  offices  are  distinctly 
enumerated  by  the  inspired  writers ;  but  profound  silenc€ 
reigns  in  the  sacred  pages  in  regard  to  this  sovereign  office, 
If  we  look  for  the  highest  position  in  the  Church,  we  find 
everywhere  the  Apostleship  indicated,  and  nothing  higher. 
The  New  Testament  knows  of  no  ecclesiastical  king, 
no  vice-gerent  of  Christ,  no  high  priest,  no  visible  head  over 
all.  On  the  contrary,  Christ  repeatedly  protests  against 
every  kind  of  ecclesiastical  lordship,  and  that  in  the  strongest 
terms. 

If  such  an  important  sovereignty  had  been  instituted, 
would  not  Christ  have  clearly  explained  its  nature,  and  laid 
down  distinct  rules  for  its  guidance,  so  as  to  guard  against 
all  abuse  %  Would  He  not  have  inculcated  obedience  to  this 
spiritual  Lord?  Would  not  the  Apostles  have  exhorted 
their  converts  to  have  recourse  to  him  %     But  not  a  word  is 


The  Primacy  of  Peter,  225 

spoken  on  this  important  point,    in  the  whole  range  of  the 
Apostolical  writings. 

Again,  if  St.  Peter  had  been  appointed  sovereign  lord  of 
the  Church,  should  we  not  find  signs  of  his  supreme  authority 
in  the  two  epistles  he  has  written  %  We  should,  at  least, 
discover  a  trace  of  it  either  in  the  matter  or  style  of  his 
letters.  But  there  is  not  the  slightest  indication  of  any  such 
authority.  "  The  elders,"  saith  he,  "  which  are  among  you, 
I  exhort,  who  am  also  an  elder  and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings 
of  Chi'ist,"  &c.,  &c.  How  different  this  from  the  style  of  the 
letters  and  bulls  of  the  popes  of  Eome,  his  pretended 
successors  !  Certainly  St.  Peter's  letters  do  not  savour  of 
popery. 

In  the  Apostolical  history,  we  find  nowhere  that  Peter 
exercised  primatal  powers  in  the  Church.  In  the  councils 
mentioned  in  the  first,  sixth,  and  fifteenth  chapters  of  the 
Acts,  we  do  not  find  Peter  acting  as  primate  or  prince.  He 
is,  indeed,  prompt  to  speak,  but  in  no  case  does  the  decision 
appear  to  rest  with  him.  He  never  assumed  any  extra- 
ordinary authority.  He  appears  to  have  had  no  thought  of 
supremacy,  but  laboured  hard  and  assiduously  like  the  other 
Apostles.  We  nowhere  find  that  he  assigned  to  them  their 
field  of  labour,  confirmed  their  acts,  or  appointed  bishops  and 
elders  in  their  field. 

In  all  the  controversies  which  then  agitated  the  infant 
Churches,  we  never  hear  of  any  appeal  made  to  Peter's 
judgment,  or  any  allegation  of  it  as  decisive;  and  no  argument 
built  on  his  authority.  The  other  Apostles  acknowledged 
no  dependence  upon  him ;  on  the  contrary  St.  Paul  "  with- 
stood him  to  the  face,  because  he  was  to  be  blamed." 

Assui^edly,  the  whole  New  Testament,  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end,  knows  nothing  of  a  "  Vicar  of  Chiist." 
16 


LECTURE   II. 

THE  POPE'S  SUPREMACY  CONSIDERED. 

ROMAN  Catholics,  in  order  to  establish  that  the  pope  is 
the  supreme  monarch  of  the  Church,  must  connect  him 
with  St.  Peter,  by  proving  that  he  is  his  successor  in  the 
primacy. 

The  question  is,  had  Peter  successors  in  whatever  offices 
and  prerogatives  the  Lord  conferred  upon  him?  It  is 
marvellous  that  Roman  controversialists  take  the  affirmative 
answer  to  this  important  question  for  granted.  They  offer 
not  a  scintilla  of  proof. 

We  maintain  that  whatever  authority  he  received  from 
Christ  was  incapable  of  transfer ;  that  it  was  mQVQly  personal 
and  therefore  incommunicable  to  any  successors.  Roman 
canon  law  says  : — Privilegium  personale  personam  sequitur, 
et  cum  persona  extinguitur — a  personal  privilege  doth  follow 
the  person,  and  is  extinguished  with  the  person.  Whatever 
powers  the  Lord  conferred  on  St.  Peter  were  grounded  on 
personal  merits  or  gi'aces,  or  upon  personal  gifts  and  endow- 
ments ;  they  were  characterized  by  personal  adjuncts  and 
fully  exercised  in  his  personal  acts.  It  is  therefore  unreason- 
able to  extend  them  beyond  his  person. 

The  Apostolical  office  itself,  as  such,  was  personal  and 
temporary,  and  therefore  could  not  be  communicated  or  be- 
queathed. For  it  was  requisite  that  an  Apostle  should  be 
immediately  designated  and  commissioned  by  God  ;  that  he 


The  Pope's  Supremacy  Considered.  227 

should  be  a  witness  of  the  resurrection  and  ascension  of 
Christ.  He  was  a  founder  of  the  Church ;  his  commission 
was  universal  and  indefinite,  embracing  all  nations.  In  a 
word,  the  Apostleship  consisted  of  many  privileges  and  powers 
which  could  not  be  transferred  to  others,  nor  did  the  Apostles 
ever  affect  to  transfer  them. 

Now,  we  have  proved,  in  the  preceding  lecture,  that  the 
powers  which  St.  Peter  received  from  Christ  were  not  distinct 
from  the  Apostolical  office ;  they  ceased,  therefore,  with  his 
death.  But  let  us  even  suppose  that  Christ  conferred  on  him 
a  primacy  of  jurisdiction  over  the  other  Apostles,  this  also 
must  have  died  with  them ;  for  when  there  were  no  longer 
Apostles  in  the  Church  there  could  be  no  prince  or  head  of 
the  Apostles. 

But  Roman  Catholics  say  that  the  bishops  are  the  succes- 
sors of  the  Apostles.  We  answer  that  they  were  called  so 
by  the  fathers  improperly,  and  in  a  broad  sense,  inasmuch  as 
the  episcopal  office  was  contained  in  that  of  the  Apostleship. 
But,  strictly  speaking,  they  are  not  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles ;  for  the  episcopal  office  was  created  by  them,  and  its 
functions  were  exercised  concurrently  during  the  lives  of  the 
Apostles,  and  in  subordination  to  them.  Bellarmine  himself, 
the  champion  of  the  papacy,  tells  us:  "There  can  be  no  pro- 
per succession  but  in  respect  of  one  preceding;  but  Apostles 
and  bishops  were  together  in  the  Church."  Bishops  may  be 
said  to  derive  their  authority  from  the  Apostles,  not  by  real 
succession,  but  by  ordination  and  appointment.  Can  magis- 
trates be  said  to  be  successors  of  the  king  because  they 
exercise  some  of  his  powers,  and  are  appointed  by  him  % 

If  the  fathers,  therefore,  called  the  bishops  successors  of 
the  Apostles,  they  meant  that  they  had  received  their  ordi- 
nation from  some  one,  either  immediately  or  mediately",  whom 


228  Roman  Catholicism, 

some  Apostle  had  ordained  bishop.     No  father  ever  dreamt 
that  a  bishop  succeeded  to  the  Apostolical  office  as  such. 

Eoman  Catholics  agree  with  us  that  the  powers  of  the 
Apostles  were  extraordinary  and  unlimited,  and  that,  in  this 
respect,  they  have  no  successors ;  but  they  maintain  that  St. 
Peter's  office  was  that  of  an  ordinary  bishop  having  pastoral 
charge  over  the  universal  Church  which  they  call  his  diocese, 
and  that  as  each  bishop  has  successors  in  his  see,  so  also  has 
St.  Peter  in  his  ordinary  episcopacy  over  the  whole  Church. 

We  answer  that  this  is  altogether  a  factitious  argument — 
a  gratuitous  assumption.  We  find  no  such  distinction  either 
in  Scripture  or  ancient  tradition  ',  we  are  taught  there  that 
his  charge  was  as  extraordinary  as  that  of  the  other  Apos- 
tles, and  every  conceivable  pastoral  authority  over  the  whole 
Church  was  ascribed  to  them  all  by  the  ancients. 

We  everywhere  find  that  the  laws  of  succession  to  the 
chief  magistracy  in  any  realm  are  considered  of  the  highest 
importance,  and  are  clearly  and  distinctly  laid  down  in  order 
to  avoid  troublesome  misunderstandings  and  dangerous  dis- 
putes. And  are  we  to  suppose  that,  if  Christ  had  appointed 
an  absolute  monarch  over  His  Church,  He  would  not  also 
have  given  well-defined  rules  whereby  his  succession  might 
be  determined  without  shadow  of  doubt  or  fear  of  contradic- 
tion %  But  the  fathers  of  the  first  centuries  know  nothing 
about  it,  and  deep  silence  prevails  in  the  New  Testament 
touching  so  important  a  point.  All  that  Koman  Catholics 
assert  in  regard  to  this  succession  is  baseless  and  fanciful. 

We  now  come  to  the  third  step  in  the  papal  theory, 
namely  the  supposition  that  Peter  was  the  regular  and  ordi- 
nary bishop  of  Rome,  that  is,  chief  local  pastor  of  that 
Church.  There  are  several  valid  reasons  for  believing  the 
contrary. 


The  Pope's  Supremacy  Considered.  229 

Some  learned  scholars  maintain  that  St.  Peter  never  wag 
at  Kome.  Theii-  arguments,  indeed,  are  very  strong,  and 
we  do  not  see  how  Roman  Catholics  can  overcome  them 
But  the  question  here  principally  relates  to  Roman  bishopric, 

In  the  first  place,  we  maintain  that  the  office  of  an  Apostle 
and  that  of  an  ordinary  and  regular  local  bishop  are  incom- 
patible. Peter,  as  an  Apostle,  was  commissioned  to  preact 
the  Gospel  to  every  creature,  to  travel  from  place  to  place, 
to  establish  Churches,  and  to  appoint  bishops  and  elders  j 
and  especially  had  he  the  general  charge  of  converting  and 
visiting  the  Jews  dispersed  over  the  whole  world  (Gal.  ii.,  8). 
And  we  may  well  believe  that  he  was  faithful  to  his  Apos- 
tolical duties.  With  the  spirit  of  a  true  soldier  of  the  Cross, 
full  of  zeal,  he  carried  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation  to  many 
places,  and  wheresoever  he  went  the  fruits  of  his  Apostleship 
must  have  been  manifest  in  the  number  of  zealous  Christians 
and  flourishing  Churches.  We  find  him  now  at  Antioch,  then 
at  Babylon,  then  at  Corinth,  anon  in  Palestine;  sometimes, 
probably,  at  each  of  those  places  to  which  he  directs  his 
Catholic  epistles,  "  the  strangers  of  the  dispersion  in  Pontus, 
Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia."  There  were  mil- 
lions of  Jews  dispersed  over  the  provinces  of  Asia  Minor, 
whom  he  was  specially  commissioned  to  add  to  the  Church. 
He  must  have  laboured  zealously  among  them.  These  pro- 
vinces contained  over  five  hundred  towns  of  considerable 
size ;  yet,  we  gather  from  his  epistles,  and  from  other  writers, 
that  he  was  well  acquainted  with  them,  that  he  preached  the 
Gospel  everywhere  amongst  them,  founded  Churches  and 
ordained  bishops  and  elders.  In  fact,  the  most  flourishing 
Churches  were  those  of  the  provinces  in  which  Peter  laboured 
as  an  Apostle. 

Now,  how  can  we  reconcile  such  an  Apostolate,  and  the 


230  Roman  Catholicism, 

zeal  Peter  displayed  in  performing  its  duties,  with  an  ordi- 
nary local  bishopric  ?  How  could  he  be  local  pastor  of  Rome 
without  neglecting  his  Apostolical  duties'?  How  could  he 
give  special  attention  to  the  Roman  Church  when  his  Apos- 
tleship  urged  him  to  spread  the  Gospel  everywhere'?  How 
could  he  combine  both  offices  in  himself,  since  one  would 
have  been  sufficient  to  occupy  all  his  care  and  attention  1 
Would  it  not  have  been  a  lowering  of  the  Apostolical  office 
to  become  local  bishop  of  Rome  %  Would  such  a  course  not 
be  the  same  as  if  a  bishop  became  a  deacon?  Would  his  act- 
ing as  an  ordinary  bishop  not  have  been  much,  as  if  a  king, 
besides  his  royal  duties,  filled  the  office  of  mayor  of  a 
city  ?  Besides,  why  did  he  need  to  be  a  local  bishop,  when 
he,  like  the  other  Apostles,  exercised  episcopal  supervision 
wherever  he  went?  In  fact,  we  find  both  him  and  the  other 
Apostles  superintending  episcopally  the  local  Churches  when 
upon  their  Apostolic  journey ings. 

If  Peter  had  been  Bishop  of  Rome,  in  the  ordinary  sense 
of  the  word,  he  would  have  violated  several  wholesome 
ecclesiastical  rules  which  were  in  full  force  from  the 
beginning — or,  at  least,  the  reasons  for  which  were  always 
considered  valid — and  would  thus  have  given  a  bad  example 
to  the  whole  Church. 

One  of  these  rules  was  that  the  local  bishop  should  always 
reside  in  his  district.  Peter  would  constantly  have  violated 
it  had  he  been  the  local  bishop  of  Rome. 

Another  rule  which  held  good  from  the  begimiing  was, 
that  a  bishop  should  not  desert  one  Church  and  transfer 
himself  to  another.  Peter  would  have  broken  it  when  he 
transferred  his  see  from  Antioch — where  they  say  he  was  for 
seven  years  bishop — to  Rome. 

Another  ancient  rule  was.  that  no  Church  should  have  two 


The  Pope's  Supremacy  Considered,  231 

bishops  at  the  same  time.  But  if  Peter  was  bishop  of  Rome, 
this  rule  would  have  been  disregarded,  for  the  same  authority 
on  which  his  Roman  episcopate  is  built,  asserts  that  St.  Paul 
was  also  bishop  of  the  same  city.  The  same  writers  call  both 
bishops  of  Rome.  From  this  we  may  infer  that  both  Apostles 
were  bishops  of  Rome  in  a  large  sense,  in  their  Apostolical 
capacity,  but  neither  of  them  in  a  strict  and  local  sense. 

We  find,  again,  in  ancient  writers,  that  Peter  either  alone 
or  in  conjunction  with  St.  Paul,  acted  at  Rome  as  he  and  the 
other  Apostles  acted  likewise  in  other  places,  that  is,  ordain- 
ed bishops,  by  virtue  of  his  Apostolical  office.  Irenseus  says, 
"the  Apostles  having  founded  and  reared  that  Church, 
delivered  the  episcopal  office  into  the  hands  of  Linus." 
(Irenceus  apud  Euseh.,  V.  6.)  Tertullian  says  that  "St. 
Peter  did  ordain  Clement."  (Tert.  de  Prceser.  32.)  Others 
between  Linus  and  Clement  interpose  Cletus  or  Anacletus. 

Hence  we  may  infer  that  Peter  never  was  bishop  of  Rome, 
or,  on  the  supposition  that  he  was,  he  did  not  continue 
so.  For  if  he  was  bishop,  he  could  not  well  ordain  another, 
either  to  preside  with  him,  or  to  succeed  him ;  there  would 
have  been  two  bishops,  at  the  same  time,  of  the  same  see, 
which  would  have  been  contrary  to  the  invariable  practice  of 
the  Primitive  Church.  Or,  he  laid  down  his  bishopric  and 
did  not  die  bishop  of  Rome,  which  would  militate  against 
the  Roman  supposition.  Or,  he  resumed  it  again  before  he 
died,  and  then  what  became  of  Linus,  Cletus,  and  Clement  1 

To  obviate  all  these  difficulties  and  contradictions  in  his- 
tory, we  explain  those  ancient  writers  who  say  that  Peter 
was  bishop  of  Rome  by  conceding  that  he  was  bishop  of 
that  city,  in  a  general  sense,  because  he  founded  that 
Church  by  preaching  the  Gospel  there,  and  by  ordaining 
a  bishop  to  preside  over  it,  and  because  having  founded 


232t  Roman  Catholicism. 

it  lie  took  an  Apostolic  oversight  of  its  affairs  whenever 
lie  happened  to  be  in  Rome.  The  other  Apostles  did  the 
same  with  regard  to  those  Churches  which  they  founded; 
yet  they  were  not  bishops  in  a  strict  and  local  sense.  We 
conclude,  therefore,  that  St.  Peter  was  never  bishop  of  Kome 
in  the  proper  signification  of  that  word  as  understood  by  the 
advocates  of  the  papacy. 

But  let  us  advance  another  step.  Granting  even,  for  argu- 
ment's sake,  that  St.  Peter  received  from  Christ  a  monarchi- 
cal primacy,  not  merely  personal,  but  communicable  to  suc- 
cessors, and  that  he  was  ordinary  bishop  of  Rome  at  his 
decease,  it  would  not  follow  even  then  that  his  successor  in 
the  Roman  see  would  succeed  him  in  the  primacy  also. 

According  to  the  Roman  theory,  Peter  would  have  held 
two  distiQct  offices,  that  of  head  of  the  Church  and  that  of 
local  bishop  of  Rome — the  latter,  of  course,  inferior  to  the 
former.  But  according  to  Roman  Catholic  theology,  these 
two  offices  were  so  closely  welded  together  that  succession 
to  the  inferior  office  involved  also  succession  to  the  higher 
one.  Now,  who  ever  heard  of  such  a  rule  of  succession  ?  It 
is  altogether  arbitrary.  We  can  well  understand  that  he 
who  succeeds  to  a  higher  authority,  succeeds  also  to  those 
inferior  offices  which  are  in  some  manner  connected  with  it; 
but  the  contrary  is  unintelligible  to  us. 

Such  a  canon  of  succession  was  altogether  unknown  in 
Roman  civil  society,  during  the  first  ages  of  Christianity. 
We  find  that  in  the  Roman  empire,  the  emperor  was  sovereign 
governor,  and  at  the  same  time  often  assumed  the  office  of 
consul  of  Rome ;  yet  when  he  died,  the  supreme  authority 
did  not  lapse  into  the  hands  of  the  consul  who  succeeded  him 
but  into  the  hands  of  the  senate  and  people. 

Now,  the  fathers  adheiing  to  this  principle,  suppose  that 


The  Pope's  Supremacy  Considered.  ^3S 

all  the  authority  of  St.  Peter  and  of  the  other  A.postles  de- 
volved upon  the  Church  and  the  bishops,  the  representa- 
tive body  thereof.  They  teach  that  the  Church,  in  this  man- 
ner, received  a  sovereign  spiritual  power.  In  this  sense,  they 
affirm  that  the  bishops  are  the  successors  of  the  Apostles, 
not  that  any  one  of  them  possesses  the  Apostolical  authority 
in  its  fulness,  but  that  the  whole  body  is  endowed  with 
supreme  power  in  the  Church.  Dr.  Barrow,  in  different 
parts  of  his  admirable  "  Treatise  of  the  Pope's  Supremacy," 
quotes  a  large  number  of  testimonies  in  confirmation  of  this 
doctrine. 

Where  do  Roman  Catholics  find  their  rule  of  succession  to 
the  supremacy  %  Scripture  is  altogether  silent  about  it ;  yet, 
in  an  affair  of  such  vast  moment,  affecting  the  very  frame- 
work of  the  Church,  it  might  be  presumed  that  God  would 
have  spoken  clearly  and  distinctly  in  His  revealed  Word. 
But  we  do  not  find  a  syllable  about  the  bishop  of  Borne  and 
his  succession  to  Peter's  alleged  supremacy.  N'or  will  they 
discover  their  rule  in  the  writings  of  the  early  fathers  of  the 
Church. 

But  they  say  that  it  has  always  been  the  ecclesiastical  law 
that  whatever  privileges  a  bishop  brought  to  his  see,  they 
were  ingrafted  upon  it  and  were  inherited  by  his  successors. 

We  do  not  find  this  law  in  the  primitive  times  of  the 
Church.  But  if  the  Boman  bishop  holds  his  succession  to 
the  supremacy  by  virtue  of  an  ecclesiastical  law,  then  he  is 
not  the  head  of  the  Church  Jitre  divino,  as  they  dogmatically 
teach,  hut  jure  ecclesiastico,  and  the  Church  which  gave  him 
the  supremacy  by  this  law,  may  take  it  away  i*rom  him  at 
any  time  she  chooses,  and  confer  it  upon  another.  And  if 
he  be  ^o^q  jure  ecclesiastico,  the  Church  would  be  superior  to 
him,  which  is  altogether  subversive  of  his  claims. 


234  Roman  Catholicism, 

Again,  they  say  that  it  was  Peter's  will  that  the  bishop 
of  Kome  should  succeed  him  in  the  primacy;  that  it  was  for 
the  very  purpose  of  avoiding  all  future  disputes  and  difficulties 
about  the  succession,  that  he  chose  to  be  bishop  of  a  particular 
see ;  that  he  first  selected  Antioch,  but  fijiding  afterwards 
that  Rome  was  a  more  suitable  place  for  the  exercise  of  the 
supreme  headship,  he  transferred  his  bishopric  to  that  city. 
I  once  heard  a  learned  Roman  Catholic  bishop  lecture  very 
eloquently  upon  the  wisdom  of  St.  Peter  in  choosing  Rome 
as  the  episcopal  see  from  whence  the  Christian  world  should 
be  governed ;  he  showed  from  the  geographical  position  of 
Rome  that  therre  was  no  city  in  the  world  better  adapted  for 
universal  dominion ;  and  that  having  been  the  mistress  of 
the  world,  in  pagan  times,  was  the  way  prepared  for  her 
spiritual  headship  in  Christendom.  Such  forms  of  argument 
you  find  not  only  in  popular  lectures,  where  their  statement 
might  be  pardoned,  but  even  in  the  writings  of  grave  and 
learned  theologians.  The  fact  is,  they  have  no  plausible 
foundation  whatever  for  the  succession  of  the  pope  to  the 
alleged  primacy  of  St.  Peter. 

If  such  was  Peter's  will,  how  does  that  will  appear  %  Where 
was  it  written  and  registered  %  It  is  nowhere  to  be  found  ; 
and  we  must  take  lathing  for  granted  here.  Our  opponents 
should  bear  in  mind  that  mere  conjectures  are  not  arguments. 

And  if  such  had  been  his  will,  would  he  not  have  acted 
very  unfaii-ly  in  subjecting,  after  his  death,  St.  John  the 
Apostle,  the  beloved  of  the  Lord,  evangelist  and  seer,  together 
with  the  other  surviving  Apostles,  to  the  rule  and  will  of 
Clement,  ordinary  bishop  of  Rome  %  Would  it  not  have  been 
reasonable  and  just  to  appoint  St.  John  as  his  successor  in 
the  primacy  % 

Again,  if  such   were   Peter's   will,   does   it  deprive  the 


The  Pope's  Supremacy  Considered.  235 

Church  of  her  right  to  elect  her  supreme  bishop?  They 
maintain  that  the  pope  is  the  universal  bishop,  having  ordi- 
nary charge  over  the  whole  Church  as  his  diocese.  Now,  if 
the  presbyters  and  people  of  each  Church  exercised  from  the 
beginning  the  right  of  electing  their  ordinary  bishop,  why 
should  the  bishops,  clergy,  and  people  of  the  whole  Church 
as  the  diocese  of  the  universal  bishop  be  deprived  of  the  right 
of  electing  theii'  supreme  pastor  1  Would  such  a  high-handed 
proceeding,  on  the  part  of  St.  Peter,  have  been  just  towards 
the  whole  body  of  pastors  who  were  all  deeply  concerned  in 
that  succession  ?  Should  the  pastors  of  the  universal  bishopric 
have  fewer  privileges  than  the  clergy  and  people  of  an 
ordinary  diocese  1  Should  they  humbly  bow  down  and  sub- 
missively accept  any  one  as  theii'  supreme  spiritual  head 
who  might  be  imposed  upon  them  by  the  clergy  of  the 
ordinary  diocese  of  Eome  1  We  cannot  suppose  that  Peter 
ever  willed  any  such  thing. 

They  say  Peter  knew  what  he  was  about :  he  foresaw  the 
endless  difficulties  that  would  have  been  connected  with  a 
universal  election  by  the  whole  Church,  especially  in  perilous 
times. 

But  these  difficulties,  however  great  they  may  have  been, 
do  not  remove  the  injustice  of  the  case  ;  especially  when  we 
consider  the  mamier  in  which  the  Roman  bishop  has  since 
been  elected.  Why,  the  history  of  the  succession  of  the 
Roman  bishops  is  a  standing  scandal  in  Christendom.  We 
find  innumerable  defects  and  corruptions  in  these  elections  ; 
often,  if  not  ordinarily,  the  Roman  bishopric  was  procured 
by  ambition,  bribery,  or  jDartiality,  or  managed  by  popular 
faction  and  tumults  ;  popes  were  intruded  by  powerful  men 
or  women,  at  their  pleasure.  If  we  study  the  history  of  these 
elections,  we  must  admit  that  it  is  hard  to  see  how  Rome 


236  Roman  Catholicism, 

retains  the  rightful  succession^  and  how  Pius  IX.  can  claim 
to  be  a  true  successor  of  the  first  pope.  Certainly,  the  pa- 
pacy is  not  indefeasible  ;  since,  according  to  its  own  rules, 
it  must  have  been  diverted  into  the  wrong  channel.  Where 
was  the  papacy  during  the  many  schisms — twenty-two  in 
number  %  Who,  in  such  times,  was  the  universal  teacher  on 
whom  the  salvation  of  millions  of  souls  depended  %  Those 
were  not.  popes,  even  according  to  Roman  teaching,  who 
were  intruded  by  violence,  and  they  were  not  few.  Were 
those  men  rightful  popes  who  obtained  the  papal  see  through 
the  instrumentality  of  influential  harlots  %  How  many  elec- 
tions had  a  flaw  in  them,  and  were  therefore  null  and  void  % 
They  were  not  popes  but  heretics  who  were  simoniacally 
chosen,  and  they  were  many.  Could  men  be  called  popes 
who  succeeded  a  deposed  pope  %  The  pope,  being  sovereign, 
cannot  be  deposed. 

Was  it  right  that  so  important  an  office,  on  which  the 
welfare  of  all  Christendom  and  the  salvation  of  souls  are 
said  to  rest,  should  depend  upon  an  election  liable  to  so 
many  taints  and  corruptions  %  How  short-sighted  St.  Peter 
would  have  been,  if,  in  order  to  render  the  succession  to  the 
headship  safe,  he  had  restricted  it  to  the  see  of  a  corrupt 
metropolis  and  left  it  at  the  mercy  of  an  ambitious  metropo- 
litan clergy  and  a  turbulent  populace. 

No ;  St.  Peter  never  dreamt  of  the  papacy.  The  Scriptures, 
neither  directly  nor  indirectly,  know  anything  of  the  claims 
of  the  bishop  of  Rome. 

But  even  tradition,  that  great  thesaurus  of  Roman  dogmas, 
is  mute  on  the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  bishop.  Several 
fathers  give  us  catalogues  of  traditional  doctrines  and  obser- 
vances, but  in  vain  do  we  look  for  the  papacy  among  them. 
Surely,  such  an  important  doctrine  on  which  all  orthodox 


The  Pope^s  Supremacy  Considered.  237 

teaching  is  said  to  hinge,  should  be  a  conspicuous  article  in 
the  ancient  creeds,  and  should  not  be  omitted  in  the  ancient 
catechisms  or  expositions  of  Christian  belief.  But  we  do  not 
find  it  there.  If  the  bishop  of  Rome  were  the  head  of  the 
Church,  the  history  of  the  papacy  would  be  the  history  of 
the  Church  ;  and  therefore  it  is  strange  that  Eusebius  in  his 
Church  History  ignores  altogether  the  supremacy  of  the  pope. 
Nor  do  any  of  the  fathers,  in  speaking  of  the  different 
Churches,  or  in  explaining  the  nature  of  the  government  and 
discipline  of  the  Church,  ever  mention  such  a  headship  or 
seem  to  be  aware  of  the  claims  of  the  Koman  bishop. 

The  Ai^ostolical  Canons  and  The  Constitutions  of  Clement, 
two  very  ancient  works,  which  describe  the  government  of 
the  Church,  its  various  offices,  discipline,  and  customs,  the 
ranks,  duties  and  privileges  of  all  ecclesiastical  persons,  do 
not  utter  a  single  word  about  the  pope  and  his  prerogatives. 
But  if  he  had  been  the  universal  monarch  of  the  Church,  it 
is  singular  that  they  should  not  even  mention  him  or  his 
office.  From  these  works  we  distinctly  gather  that  the 
Church  is  not  an  ecclesiastical  monarchy. 

If  the  pope  had  been  acknowledged  the  universal  teacher  and 
pastor  of  the  Church,  the  fathers,  in  their  disputes  against 
the  heretics,  would  in  the  first  place,  have  sought  and  urged 
his  decree,  as  the  conclusive  argument,  and  as  the  most  effi- 
cacious method  of  convincing  or  silencing  them.  But  they 
appeal  to  Scripture,  tradition,  and  reason,  and  seem  not  to  be 
aware  of  such  a  universal  teacher.  Nay,  they  often  resisted 
the  teachings  of  the  popes,  and  that,  in  later  times,  would 
have  been  considered  downright  heresy. 

Moreover,  even  the  bishops  of  Home,  themselves,  for 
several  centuries,  did  not  dream  of  the  high  claims  which 
their  successors  in  fche  ages  following  advanced;   they  were 


238  Roman  Catholicism. 

not  aware  that  they  were  the  heads  of  the  Church.  In  their 
elaborate  works  against  heretics,  they  content  themselves 
with  urging  testimonies  of  Scripture  and  arguments  groun- 
ded thereon,  never  asserting  their  own  definitive  authority 
against  them. 

We  may  be  certain  that  the  divines  of  the  Roman  curia 
have  made  the  most  diligent  search,  in  all  the  documents  of 
Christian  antiquity,  for  arguments  and  proofs  in  order  to 
establish  the  supremacy  of  the  pope,  the  central  point  of  their 
system.  But  the  impartial  enquirer  will  find  that  they  are 
not  conclusive.  It  is  painful  to  see  how  earnest  men  wrest 
words,  and,  from  the  pre-occupation  of  their  minds>  appear 
determined  to  make  out  their  point  by  far-fetched  applica- 
tions and  by  strained  inferences. 

It  is  astonishing,  if  the  pope  were  the  sovereign  monarch 
of  the  Church,  as  they  would  have  him  to  be,  that  in  so 
many  ponderous  volumes  of  ancient  fathers,  living  through 
so  many  ages  after  Christ,  those  vast  treasuries  of  learning 
and  piety,  in  which  all  the  truths  of  Christianity  are  dis- 
cussed, and  all  the  most  important  duties  inculcated,  this  all- 
important  article  of  faith,  this  momentous  point  of  practice, 
this  Christian  duty  of  obedience  to  the  pope  as  head  of  the 
Church  should  not  be  expressed  in  clear  and  peremptory 
terms. 

When  did  this  doctrine  originate'?  How  did  it  growl 
How  is  it  that  it  has  got  such  a  firm  hold  on  the  minds  of 
men  1     Let  us  consider  these  points  in  our  next  lecture. 


LECTUEE    TIL 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  TEE  PAPACY— THE  ROMAN  BISHOP- 
BIO  IN  THE  UNDIVIDED  CEURQH. 

THE  papacy  is  the  growth  of  ages.  It  commenced  with 
the  introduction  of  sacerdotalism  into  the  Church  and 
the  coping  stone  was  laid  by  Pius  IX.,  in  the  Vatican 
Council.  The  student  of  history,  following  it  step  by  step, 
perceives  it  growing  before  his  eyes,  but  fails  to  notice  any 
divine  element  in  it.  Clerical  ambition  had  first  to  be  in- 
troduced into  the  Church,  before  the  bishop  of  Rome  could 
dream  of  a  primacy. 

We  find  that  the  government  of  the  Church  in  the  first 
century  was  very  simple.  Congregations  were  small ;  they 
assembled  in  private  houses.  Presbyters  or  elders,  and 
deacons  or  ministers  appear  at  first  to  have  been  the  only 
officers.  Soon  bishops  or  superintending  elders  were  ap- 
pointed by  the  Apostles.  The  nature  of  orderly  Church- 
government  required  that  as  the  congregation  increased  some 
one  elder  should  superintend  the  management  of  its  afiairs. 
The  episcopal  oversight  did  not  long  remain  confined  to  one 
congregation.  The  bishop  preached  the  Gospel  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood, and  formed  new  communities  to  which  he  ap- 
pointed presbyters ;  and  it  was  proper  and  reasonable  that 
he  should  also  superintend  these  Churches.  But  the  epis- 
copal office  of  those  times  differed  greatly  from  the  episcopal 
sway  and  lordship  which  were  afterwards  claimed. 


240  Roman  Catholicism, 

We  find  that  the  primitive  Churches  were  entirely  inde- 
pendent of  each  other,  each  one  managing  its  own  affairs  in 
perfect  liberty.  But  the  government  of  the  Church  under- 
went a  change  towards  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century, 
when  Churches  associated  for  mutual  counsel  and  assistance 
and  met  together  in  Synods,  to  which  each  community  sent 
its  delegates.  At  first,  each  of  these  associations  extended 
to  one  province  only ;  but  soon  these  provincial  synods  gave 
rise  to  larger  assemblies.  It  was  the  system  of  association 
which  first  increased  the  power  of  the  bishops  ',  for  they 
alone  were  considered  the  natural  and  rightful  delegates  and 
representatives  of  their  Churches.  It  created  new.  offices  of 
honour  and  jurisdiction  which  soon  became  objects  of  am- 
bition. A  metropolitan  was  placed  over  each  province,  and 
a  patriarch  over  associations  of  several  provinces. 

At  the  same  time,  the  bishoj^s  commenced  to  look  upon 
themselves  as  successors  of  the  Apostles,  and  those  Churches 
which  were  immediately  founded  by  the  Apostles  enjoyed 
greater  honour,  and  were  called  Apostolical  Churches.  The 
Churches  lost  their  primitive  independence,  for  they  were 
now  governed  by  canons  framed  in  these  synods  and  general 
assemblies. 

At  the  same  time,  sacerdotalism  and  its  satellite  ritualism 
made  their  appearance  and  in  course  of  time  were  firmly 
established  in  the  Church,  giving  to  the  clergy  an  immense 
authority  over  the  laity ;  whilst  the  bishops  came  to  be 
regarded  as  the  high  priests  of  their  respective  charges. 

Thus  we  find  that  the  government  of  the  Church,  in  the 
third  century  had  become  an  aristocratic  oligarchy.  It  was 
contended  that  the  universal  authority  of  the  Apostles  had 
descended  to  the  whole  body  of  bishops.  No  single  bishop 
was  as  yet  believed  to  be  the  inheritor  of  all  the  Apostolical 


Development  of  the  Papacy.  241 

powers,  for  all  bishops  alike  were  said  to  share  in  them,  and 
they  could  not  be  exercised  except  by  the  whole  united 
episcopate. 

The  bishops  of  the  Apostolical  Churches  appear  to  have 
enjoyed  greater  honour;  and  the  patriarchs  of  Rome,  Antioch, 
and  Alexandria  were  placed  in  the  first  rank.  The  bishop 
of  Eome  soon  began  to  enjoy  a  pre-eminence  of  order  and 
association,  but  not  of  jurisdiction.  No  bishop  ruled  as  yet 
over  another ;  they  were  perfectly  independent  in  the  man- 
agement of  their  own  dioceses.  In  the  Apostolical  Canons, 
The  Constitutions,  The  Recognitions,  Clementine  and  other 
documents  which  were  forged  about  this  time,  we  find  no 
traces  of  a  papal  supremacy. 

But  the  first  incentives  to  this  claim  had  been  given  and  the 
first  foundations  of  an  ecclesiastical  monarchy  laid.  The 
rights  of  the  people  and  clergy  had  been  destroyed  by  the 
bishops.  The  next  step  towards  introducing  an  ecclesiastical 
sovereignty  was  to  reduce  the  authority  and  independence  of 
the  bishops.  A  spiritual  oligarchy  having  enslaved  the  people, 
the  inevitable  consequence  must  follow  that  an  ecclesiastical 
despot  will  be  found  to  subdue  the  episcopal  oligarchy.  At 
the  end  of  the  third  century  we  find  that  the  bishops  have 
made  the  bishop  of  Rome  the  first  patriarch  in  the  Church. 
Out  of  this  patriarchate  the  papacy  was  gradually  but  perse- 
veringly  developed. 

The  conversion  of  Constantino  had  a  great  influence  on  the 
government  of  the  Church.  The  Christian  Church  became 
the  Church  of  the  Roman  empire.  Church  and  State  were 
soon  united.  We  read  in  Eusebius  that  the  emperor  divided 
the  administration  of  the  Church  into  an  external  and  inter- 
nal inspection  ;  and  although  he  left  the  latter  to  the  bishops, 
he  assumed  the  former  to  himself  He  exercised  supreme  con- 

16 


242  Rornan  Catholicism 

trol  over  the  whole  ecclesiastical  body  in  so  far  as  he  deemed 
it  conducive  to  the  public  good.  He  accommodated  the  divi- 
sions of  the  Church  into  ecclesiastical  provinces  and  dioceses 
to  the  divisions  and  subdivisions  of  the  empire.  Leaving  to 
the  bishops  the  government  of  their  particular  churches,  he 
aided  them  in  determining  controversies.  To  this  end  he 
called  together  the  first  general  council  at  Nicsea,  and  his 
successors  adopted  the  same  ecclesiastical  polity. 

From  this  it  is  evident  that,  although  the  bishop  of  Rome 
was  allowed  to  be  the  first  patriarch,  his  primatial  jurisdic- 
tion was  even  yet  unknown.  What  would  have  been  the 
need  of  general  councils,  if  he  had  been  the  infallible  head  of 
the  Church  as  E-oman  Catholics  suppose  him  to  be  %  Would 
the  emperors  have  taken  so  active  and  prominent  a  part  in 
the  general  oversight  of  the  Church  ?  Would  not  the  pope 
have  protested  against  undue  secular  interference?  Yet, 
notwithstanding  that  the  supposed  claims  of  the  Koman 
bishop  were  steadily,  and  without  protest,  ignored,  the  Roman 
see  was  moving  onward,  gradually  and  imperceptibly,  towards 
supreme  authority  over  the  entire  Church.  It  has  ever  been 
the  policy  of  the  bishops  of  Rome  to  hold  fast  and  retain 
tenaciously  what  they  have  once  got  into  possession,  and  to 
make  it  the  stepping-stone  to  a  further  development  of  their 
power.  We  see  nothing  singular  in  this  if  we  reflect  that, 
ever  since  the  third  century,  the  bishops  were  the  lords  of 
the  Church,  and  ambition  was  one  of  their  besetting  sins,  in 
fact  the  curse  of  the  Church.  Each  bishop  considered  it  his 
sacred  duty  to  preserve  intact  the  privileges  of  his  see,  and, 
if  possible,  to  enlarge  them.  The  history  of  the  Church  pre- 
:sents  to  us  a  continual  struggle  of  these  priestly  lords  for  the 
aggrandizement  of  their  power.  Episcopal  ambition  and 
lordly  pride,  indeed,  have  always  been  the  bane  of  Chris o's 


bevelipment  of  the  Papacy,  S43 

Church.  It  seems,  therefore,  quite  natural  to  us  that  the 
bishop  of  Rome  should  follow  the  example  of  his  episcopal 
brethren  and  pursue  the  same  course  in  maintaining  and 
extending  his  rights.  The  papacy  is  the  legitimate  offspring 
of  episcopal  pride  and  corruption. 

Circumstances  favoured  the  prelate  of  Rome.  It  will  be 
conceded  by  all  that  the  lustre  and  'prestige  of  a  bishopric 
greatly  depend  upon  the  secular  importance  of  the  city  over 
wliich  he  presides.  Now,  Rome  was  the  imperial  metropolis 
of  the  world ;  thither  men  resorted  from  all  parts  of  the  vast 
empire,  either  for  the  various  purposes  of  civil  government 
or  for  other  sufficient  reasons.  The  bishop  of  that  city  pre- 
sided over  the  most  wealthy  and  influential  Church  ;  he  had 
the  means  of  assisting  those  who  applied  to  him  for  aid. 
Since  the  Church  had  become  united  with  the  State,  he  must 
have  wielded  considerable  influence  with  the  higher  powers. 
He  had  the  advantage  of  being  known  throughout  the  whole 
empire,  and  the  splendour  in  which  he  lived  excited  general 
wonder  and  admiration.r 

It  is  quite  natural  that,  as  bishop  of  the  first  city,  and 
enjoying  advantages  above  the  rest  of  his  brethren,  he  should 
have  been  considered  first  bishop  in  the  Church,  and  held  in 
high  esteem  and  veneration  among  his  brethren.  And  it 
may  be  supposed  that,  as  a  matter  of  course,  he  enjoyed  a 
certain  pre-eminence  of  order  and  honour ;  that  his  opinion 
was  sought  by  contending  parties  \  and  that  in  the  assemblies 
he  attended,  the  presidency  devolved  upon  him,  without  dis- 
pute. That  all  these  honours  were  showered  upon  him,  at 
first,  solely  because  he  was  bishop  of  the  first  city  of  the 
empire,  is  indisputable  from  the  fact  that  as  Constantinople 
afterwards  became  the  imperial  metropolis,  the  bishop  of 
that  city  claimed  equal  honours  with  the  bishop  of  Rome — 
because  it  was  New  Rome. 


244  Roman  Catholicism. 

It  is  in  the  nature  of  power  to  grow  and  extend  itself, 
laying  hold  of  everything  within  its  grasp,  watching  opportu- 
nities for  its  aggrandizement,  and  improving  them  to  the 
best  advantage,  overcoming  opponents  and  gaining  new 
friends  and  adherents.  Hence  the  growth  of  the  papacy  is  a 
repetition  of  the  old  story,  how  mighty  empires  arise  and 
grow  out  of  small  beginnings.  Rome  being  the  first  city, 
an  Apostolical  see  founded  by  the  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul, 
its  bishop  claiming  to  be  the  successor  of  St.  Peter, — these 
were  the  beginnings  of  the  papacy,  from  which  the  race  for 
supremacy  began. 

In  this  struggle  for  sovereignty,  Eome  had  the  advantage 
over  secular  powers  because  she  claimed  spiritual  authority 
over  the  consciences  of  men.  Spiiitual  power  is  of  a  growing 
nature  j  it  insinuates  itself  into  the  heart ;  its  arms  are  the 
most  subtle,  yet  the  most  potent,  and  they  cannot  be  captured 
or  destroyed  by  any  earthly  opposition.  They  are  always 
ready  furnished  and  make  a  powerful  impression,  since  the 
Church  can  promise  God's  blessing  and  eternal  happiness  to 
those  who  obey  its  commands,  and  threaten  the  disobedient 
with  divine  vengeance  and  eternal  misery. 

The  next  important  step  which  the  bishop  of  Rome  took 
in  his  contest  for  the  sovereignty  of  the  Church  may  be 
traced  in  some  canons  of  the  council  of  Sardica  (in  347) 
which  introduced  appeals  to  him,  in  certain  cases.  These 
canons  are  very  doubtful  in  point  of  authenticity  and,  even 
if  genuine,  by  no  means  recognise  the  supremacy  or  establish 
it,  and  at  any  rate  were  applicable  only  to  the  West.  But 
they  did  the  popes  great  service  and  proved  potent  engines 
by  which  to  enlarge  their  power  and  enslave  the  Western 
Church.  They  were  emboldened  by  them  to  receive  all  kinds 
of  appeals  and  to  reverse  the  judgments  of  provincial  coun- 
cils. 


Development  of  the  Papacy,  2.45 

We  find  also  that  the  imprudence  of  the  emperors  and  the 
precipitate  action  of  bishops  afforded  fatal  opportunities  for 
enhancing  the  power  of  the  bishops  of  Rome.  Although  they 
were  merely  citizens  like  the  other  subjects  of  the  empire, 
and  instead  of  making  ecclesiastical  laws,  were  obliged  to 
obey  those  made  by  the  emperor  or  by  councils  convened 
under  his  orders,  yet  the  emperors  sometimes  referred  impor- 
tant causes  to  their  judgment.  Nay,  Valentinian  went  so 
far  as  to  enact  a  law  (in  372),  "  empowering  the  bishop  of 
Rome  to  examine  and  judge  other  bishops,  that  religions  dis- 
putes might  not  be  decided  by  profane  or  secular  judges."  The 
bishops  would  have  spurned  the  idea  of  deriving  their 
authority  from  the  bishop  of  Rome  or  of  holding  their  com- 
missions by  favour  of  the  Roman  see,  because  they  con- 
sidered themselves  independent  of  it,  both  as  regards  the 
origin  of  their  authority  and  the  manner  of  exercising  it. 
Yet  we  find  that,  as  many  of  them  were  cringing  flatterers  of 
the  powerful  and  influential  Roman  prelate,  they  unconsci- 
ously forged  fetters  for  the  entire  episcopate.  Thus  the 
bishops  assembled  in  council  at  Rome  (in  378)  highly  ap- 
proved of  the  above  mentioned  law  of  Valentinian  and 
humbly  petitioned  the  emperor  Gratian  to  give  it  full  force. 
These  and  similar  laws,  and  not  divine  authority,  formed 
some  of  the  material  out  of  which  the  papacy  was  built  by 
slow  yet  sure  instalments. 

In  order  to  understand  the  growth  and  development  of  the 
papal  power  we  must  also  take  into  consideration  the  state  of 
the  Church  during  the  first  eight  centuries.  The  whole  em- 
pire was  agitated  by  the  most  vital  questions,  both  religious 
and  political.  The  very  existence  of  Christianity  was  at 
stake.  Arianism,  JSTestorianism,  Eutychianism,  Monothel- 
ism,  &c.,  &c.,  with  their  numerous  ramifications,  were  rend- 


246  Roman  Catholicism, 

ing  and  convulsing  Christendom.  The  bishops  of  the  chiel 
city  were  compelled  to  side  either  with  the  one  party  or  the 
other.  And  it  was  but  natural  that  the  party  with  whom 
they  sided,  being  successful,  should  look  up  to  them  as 
leaders  and  chieftains  in  their  cause.  Now,  it  so  happened 
that,  in  those  doctrinal  questions  which  form  the  basis  of 
Christianity,  the  Roman  pontiffs  took  the  side  of  the  ortho- 
dox or  Catholic  party,  which  fought  for  the  cause  of  truth 
and  obtained  the  final  victory.  This  espousal  of  the  truth, 
and  the  successful  issue  of  its  contest  with  heresy,  gave  the 
bishops  of  Kome  great  influence  in  the  Church.  The  fore- 
most champions  of  the  truth,  such  as  Athanasius  and  Cyril- 
lus,  and  other  good  bishops  and  eminent  men  who  were 
violently  persecuted  by  the  heretical  factions,  sought  and 
found  shelter  under  the  protection  of  the  powerful  bishop  of 
Rome.  As  a  matter  of  course,  he  was  extolled  by  the  pre- 
vailing party,  and  obtained  both  reputation  and  power.  It 
was  for  this  reason  that  the  Sardican  synod  framed  those 
canons  of  appeal  which  became  one  of  the  main  engines  by 
which  he  raised  himself  so  high. 

As  we  have  stated  above,  the  bishops  commenced  as  early 
as  the  third  century,  if  not  earlier,  to  encroach  upon  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  the  clergy  and  laity.  Their  turn  of 
enslavement  came  on  next,  gradually,  but  surely.  The  his- 
tory of  the  third  and  subsequent  centuries  presents  to  us  a  dis- 
gusting spectacle  of  prelatical  ambition,  dissension,  and  war- 
fare. The  whole  empire  was  agitated  by  the  ambitious 
schemes  of  the  bishops.  They  endeavoured  to  extend  their 
respective  spheres  of  jurisdiction  and  encroached  upon  one 
another's  rights.  Pretexts  were  not  wanting  in  palliation 
of  their  ambitious  designs.  Some  thought  the  political  impor- 
tance of  their  episcopal  city  a  sufficient  reason  for  asserting 


Development  of  the  Papacy.  247 

ecclesiastical  superiority;  others  alleged  its  Apostolical  origin, 
pretended  or  real,  as  an  incontrovertible  ground  of  pre- 
eminence ;  others  claimed  episcopal  jurisdiction  over  those  re- 
gions which  had  been  converted  to  Christianity  through  their 
instrumentality.  These  ambitious  intrigues  revolutionized 
the  constitution  of  the  Church,  and  patriarchal  government 
was  the  issue.  Thus  another  step  was  made  towards  an  eccle- ' 
siastical  monarchy.  The  patriarchate  will  finally  be  merged 
into  the  papacy,  but  the  episcopate  must  first  be  weakened 
and  humbled  under  the  patriarchate,  before  it  can  be  en- 
slaved by  one  spiritual  despot. 

At  first,  only  the  bishops  of  Rome,  Antioch,  and  Alexan- 
dria were  endowed  with  patriarchal  dignity  and  jurisdiction. 
To  these  very  soon  the  bishop  of  Constantinople  was  added, 
on  account  of  the  political  importance  of  his  see.  The 
bishop  of  Jerusalem  agitated  next  for  patriarchal  honours,  on 
account  of  his  see  being  the  mother  Church  of  Christendom, 
and  these  were  confii^med  to  him  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 

Henceforth  the  quarrels  of  these  five  patriarchs  become 
conspicuous  in  the  Church.  In  proportion  as  they  allowed 
the  bishops  under  their  jurisdiction  to  trample  on  the  rights 
of  the  people,  they  themselves  curtailed  the  privileges  of 
their  brethren  of  the  episcopal  order  and  lorded  it  over  them. 
Instead  of  promoting  peace,  they  fomented  dissensions  in 
order  to  enjoy  the  exquisite  pleasure  of  exerting  the 
patriarchal  power,  which  they  constantly  enlarged.  In  order 
to  subdue  the  bishops,  these  lordly  patriarchs  became  the 
special  patrons  of  the  monks,  those  lazy  and  turbulent  pests 
with  which  the  Church,  especially  in  the  East,  was  then 
swarming,  and  by  mujxificent  donations  and  concessions  en- 
gaged their  services  to  oppose  the  authority  of  the  bishops. 
Thej/  were  the  ecclesiastical  aiaay  of  the  few  spiritual  despots 


248  .  Roman  Catholicism. 

who  then  ruled  the  Church.  It  appears  to  us  that  the 
monks  have  certainly  been  the  principal  instruments,  in  the 
hands  of  ambitious  rulers,  first  in  establishing  and  then  in 
consolidating  the  papacy.  At  no  time,  even  down  to  our 
own,  could  the  papacy  have  continued  to  exist  without  them. 

If  the  patriarchs  oppressed  theii^  inferiors,  they  also  tried 
to  extinguish  each  other.  The  bishop  of  Constantinople  con- 
tested the  supremacy  with  the  bishop  of  Home,  and  used 
every  form  of  intrigue  to  crush  the  other  Eastern  patriarchs. 
The  latter,  although  struggling  with  all  their  might  against 
that  ambitious  prelate,  succumbed  to  his  superior  power  and 
had  to  submit  to  his  rule.  But  the  Koman  pontiff  was  too 
potent  for  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople. 

We  have  thus  advanced  another  step  in  our  exposition  of 
papal  development.  Spiritual  despotism,  is  firmly  rooted  in 
the  Church,  and  the  contest  for  ecclesiastical  supremacy  is 
reduced  to  two  rivals,  the  bishops  of  Rome  and  of  Constan- 
tinople. 

The  dissensions  in  the  east  contributed  to  enhance  the 
power  of  the  Roman  bishop;  for  the  patriarchs  of  Antioch 
and  Alexandria,  in  their  contests  with  the  Byzantine  prelate, 
alternately  fled  to  Rome  for  succour  and  protection,  and  the 
inferior  order  of  bishops  applied  also  to  the  Roman  see  when 
their  rights  were  encroached  upon  by  the  bishops  of  Alexan- 
dria and  Antioch.  Even  the  patriarchs  of  Constantinople, 
who,  in  their  prosperity,  rivalled  the  bishop  of  Rome,  applied 
to  him  for  aid  when  they  were  oppressed  by  the  emperor,  or 
when  they  had  to  contend  with  a  rival  competitor  for  their 
bishopric.  If  thus  the  Eastern  bishops  fled  to  Rome  in  their 
distress,  there  was  a  similar  concourse  thither  from  the  West, 
where  the  pope  exercised  patriaixhal  jurisdiction  without 
dispute. 


Development  of  the  Papacy.  249 

This  proceeding  on  tlie  part  of  oppressed  bishops  does  not 
prove  the  universal  supremacy  of  the  bishop  of  Eome,  but  it 
greatly  increased  his  influence.  For  what  will  men  not  do 
when  in  straits  %  They  must  flee  somewhere  for  redress,  and  if 
they  believed  that  the  patriarch  of  Rome  could  aid  them, 
why  should  they  not  have  recourse  to  him  % 

It  was  but  natural  that  those  who  thus  applied  to  Rome, 
should  extol  the  authority  of  that  see,  not  merely  to  display 
their  gratitude,  but  also  to  advance  their  own  cause  ;  for  the 
greater  its  authority,  the  more  weight  the  decision  of  its 
bishop  would  have  in  their  case. 

Moreover,  the  Roman  clergy,  the  bishops  of  Italy,  and 
others  in  the  West  who  basked  in  the  sunshine  of  the  bishop 
of  Rome,  enjoyed  his  favours  and  participated  in  his  privi- 
leges would,  of  course,  exert  themselves  to  the  utmost  to 
enlarge  his  authority  and  induce  him  to  believe  that  he  was 
in  fact  and  of  right  the  ruler  of  the  universal  Church.  It 
was  their  policy  to  urge  him  to  higher  assumptions,  and 
assist  him  by  all  means  to  acquire  power  and  maintain  it. 
Even  if  there  had  been  a  Roman  bishop  of  no  ambition,  his 
power  would  have  grown  of  itself.  He  only  needed  to  be 
passive  therein,  and  his  partisans  would  work  for  him,  be- 
cause they  had  as  deep  an  interest  in  its  firm  establishment 
and  solid  advancement  as  himself. 

But  we  have  no  instances  of  this  want  of  ambition  in  the 
bishops  of  Rome.  They  were  gradually,  but  by  no  means 
reluctantly,  led  into  the  belief  that  they  were  the  spii'itual 
sovereigns  of  the  Church.  Little  by  little  their  power  in- 
creased. It  was  considered  a  sound  maxim  by  the  bishops, 
not  only  to  retain  what  they  possessed,  but  also  to  increase  it. 
Why,  then,  should  the  bishop  of  Rome  have  scruples  in  en- 
larging his  power  %  Men  had  recourse  to  him,  and,  in  order  to 


250  Roman  Catholicism. 

obtain  his  countenance  and  influence  in  their  behalf,  used  ex- 
pressions magnifying  his  authority  ;  was  it  not  natural  that 
he  should  view  this  language  in  the  light  most  favourable 
to  himself?  Suppliants,  in  their  addresses  to  him,  often 
employed  words  which  in  themselves  do  not  mean  a  real  sup- 
remacy, but  were  nevertheless  interpreted  as  implying  it. 
Thus  successor  of  Peter,  Apostolic  see,  prima  sedes  are  merely 
terms  «f  honour ;  the  word  of  bishop  applied  to  St.  Peter  does 
not  mean  a  bishop  in  the  proper  sense  ;  the  word  head  signi- 
fies any  kind  of  eminence ;  prince,  any  priority ;  to  preside, 
any  kind  of  superiority  j  successor,  any  derivation  of  power  ; 
authority,  any  kind  of  influence  upon  the  opinions  and 
actions  of  men.  The  atmosphere  in  which  the  Roman 
bishops  moved  had  the  effect  of  inspiring  them  with  the 
idea  of  power.  They  lived  in  great  splendour,  the  men  with 
whom  they  came  in  daily  contact  either  crouched  silently  be- 
fore them  or  treated  them  to  the  most  fulsome  adulation. 
Men  are  naturally  prone  to  exalt  power,  and  the  possessor  of 
it  greedily  accepts  flattering  words  as  true,  and  construes 
them  in  their  most  attractive  sense.  Hence  it  is  not  surpri- 
sing that  the  bishops  of  E-ome,  in  course  of  time,  should  be- 
come imbued  with  the  belief  that  their  authority  extended 
beyond  the  limits  of  their  patriarchate. 

There  are  many  reasons  why  the.  Roman  pontiffs  outran 
the  patriarchs  of  Constantinople  in  the  race  for  supremacy. 
The  mighty  political  convulsions  which  commenced  in  the 
fourth  century,  contributed  greatly  to  this  end.  The  impe- 
rial power  was  on  the  wane,  and  its  abandonment  of  Rome 
and  removal  to  Constantinople,  instead  of  diminishing  the 
authority  of  the  Roman  bishop,  greatly  increased  it  ]  nay, 
left  it  almost  free  of  control.  From  this  time  forth,  besides 
the  spiritual,  he  commenced,  also,  to  assume  a  temnoral 


Development  of  the  Papacy.  251 

swaj ;  for  not  only  did  the  order  of  the  city  depend  greatly 
on  his  authority,  but  sometimes  he  was  obliged  to  meet  the 
invading  conquerors  of  the  North  and  treat  with  them  for 
its  very  life  and  existence.  Where  kings  and  emperors  would 
have  failed,  the  Roman  pontifex  maximus  succeeded. 

The  incursions  of  the  barbarians  contributed  greatly  to 
the  advancement  of  his  power.  For  when  those  rude  and 
unsophisticated  sons  of  the  North  perceived  how  the  peo- 
ple were  led  by  the  bishops  and  how  they  depended  upon 
the  pope,  they  were  moved  by  the  desire  to  reconcile  this 
potent  high  priest  by  treating  him  with  the  deepest  rever- 
ence and  conferring  upon  him  all  the  honours  and  benefits 
they  could  bestow. 

It  may  seem  paradoxical,  yet  it  is  true,  that  these  northern 
nations,  so  free  and  unbridled,  contributed  more  than  any  other 
single  cause  to  the  growth  and  consolidation  of  the  papacy. 
As  pagans  they  were  absolutely  enslaved  by  their  priests,  the 
druids,  whose  authority  they  consulted  in  all  affairs,  civil  or 
military.  They  had  a  chief  druid  or  high  priest  who  exer- 
cised boundless  power  and  whom  they  honoured  with  the 
most  abject  veneration.  Now  when  they,  almost  en  masse, 
embraced  Christianity,  they  brought  all  this  slavish  submis- 
sion into  the  Church  and  lavished  it  upon  the  Christian 
priesthood  :  they  regarded  the  bishops  as  they  had  eiewhile 
regarded  the  druids  and  the  pope  as  the  archdruid,  and  con- 
ferred upon  him  an  authority  greater  than  he  had  enjoyed  as 
pontifex  maximus. 

However,  the  papal  edifice  was  by  no  means  complete  even 
yet.  What  Rome  had  gained  in  the  West,  it  lost  in  the  East. 
The  contest  between  the  bishops  of  Rome  and  Constantinople 
continued  without  respite  until  the  final  rupture  in  the  ninth 
century.     The  Roman  bishops  sometimes  gained  advantages 


252  Roman  Catholicism. 

over  their  Eastern  patriarchal  opponent ;  but  they  were  only 
temporary.  It  was  a  contest  not  only  about  the  limits  of 
their  respective  patriarchal  jurisdictions,  but  also  touching 
supreme  dominion  over  the  whole  Church.  Both  were  de- 
termined and  obstinate  ;  one  or  other  must  ultimately  yield, 
or  the  contest  would  finally  end  in  a  schism  between 
Western  and  Eastern  Christendom.  Pope  Gregory  the 
Great  in  vain  opposed  the  assumption  of  the  title  of 
Qj]cumenical  Bishop  by  the  bold  prelate  of  Constantinople 
(A.D.  588).  Pope  Boniface  III.  prevailed  upon  the  Emperor 
Phocas,  notorious  for  his  crimes  and  tyranny,  to  take  from 
the  bishop  of  Constantinople  the  title  of  (Ecumenical  Bishop 
and  confer  it  upon  the  Boman  bishop.  This  is  the  first  in- 
stance in  which  we  find  the  papal  supremacy  openly  and 
officially  recognized,  but  it  was  never  acknowledged  in  the 
East.  Other  causes  afterwards  added  fuel  to  the  bitter  ani- 
mosity. Favourable  opportunities  several  times  presented 
themselves  for  healing  the  old  wounds  and  uniting  the  two 
Churches  ;  but  the  insatiable  ambition  and  unreasonable  de- 
mands of  the  Boman  pontifi"  destroyed  all  possibility  of  an 
amicable  adjustment,  and  a  final  and  complete  disruption 
was  the  result. 

Thus  the  grasping  ambition  of  the  bishop  of  Bome  was 
the  cause  of  the  division  of  Christendom  into  two  gTeat  sec- 
tions bitterly  opposed  to  each  other.  He  never  held  sway 
in  the  East  and  never  exercised  supreme  authority  over  the 
intellectual  Greeks  ;  it  was  amongst  the  "Western  barbarians 
only  that  he  managed  to  develop  the  monstrous  claims  of 
the  papacy. 

Let  us  continue  the  consideration  of  this  development  in 
our  next  lecture. 


LECTUEE    IV. 

DEVELOPMENT   OF    THE  PAPACY  AFTER    TEE  GREAT 
SCHISM. 

LET  us  continue,  in  this  lecture,  our  review  of  the  de- 
velopment of  the  papacy.  We  have  followed  it  up  to 
the  schism  between  the  East  and  West.  The  West,  hence- 
forth, is  the  only  field  in  which  the  bishops  of  Rome  may  put 
forth  their  ambitious  claims.  But  even  here  this  develop- 
ment required  centuries. 

They  directed  every  effort,  religious  and  political,  to  estab- 
lish and  enlarge  the  authority  and  pre-eminence  they  had  ob- 
tained from  Phocas,  the  most  odious  tyi^ant  that  ever  disgraced 
the  annals  of  history.  But  we  find  that  their  ambitious  views 
were  strongly  opposed,  not  only  by  the  emperors  and  kings, 
but  also  by  the  various  nations  of  the  West.  Their  election 
and  confirmation  depended  on  the  will  of  the  civil  powers. 
They  had  to  obey  the  temporal  rulers  and  act  as  dutiful  sub- 
jects, like  other  citizens.  We  learn  from  Bede  that  the 
ancient  Britons  and  Scots  knew  nothing  of  the  papacy  and 
could  not  be  induced  to  submit  to  the  decrees  of  the  ar- 
rogant Roman  pontiffs.  Spain  and  Gaul  retained,  for  a  long 
time,  theii'  ecclesiastical  independence,  and  often  sturdily  op- 
posed the  encroachments  of  the  papal  see.  Even  in  Italy 
his  power  was  limited  ;  and  there  were  multitudes  of  private 
persons  who  opposed  the  lordly  ambition  of  the  bishops  of 
Rome.  Yet,  such  opposition  was  by  no  means  considered 
as  savouring  ol  iieiesy  or  aciiism. 


254  Roman  CatJwlicism. 

The  next  great  step  towards  universal  dominion  made  by  the 
pope  was  his  investiture  with  temporal  sovereignty.  Indeed, 
we  may  say  that  he  possessed  no  real  spiritual  dominion  un- 
til after  he  became  a  temporal  prince.  The  papacy  was  the 
outgrowth  of  favouring  circumstances.  His  temporal 
power  sprang  from  the  feeble  condition  and  final  decay  of 
the  Roman  empire,  and  the  peculiarly  favourable  disposi- 
tion of  the  invaders  from  the  North.  These  barbarian  con- 
querors, when  they  embraced  Christianity,  not  only  trans- 
ferred to  the  Church  all  the  old  superstitious  reverence  with 
which  they  had  regarded  the  druids,  but  also  heaped  upon 
her  a  large  proportion  of  the  rich  spoils  they  had  taken  from 
conquered  nations.  Not  content  with  giving  gold  and  silver, 
they  manifested  their  superstitious  veneration  for  the  clergy 
by  conferring  upon  bishops,  churches,  and  monasteries 
feudatory  rights  over  whole  provinces,  cities,  castles,  and  for- 
tresses. This  unwonted  accession  of  wealth  and  power  began 
with  their  head,  the  Roman  pontiff,  who  not  only  gladly  re- 
ceived it,  but  claimed  it  as  a  right,  adducing  proofs  from 
Scripture  and  forged  documents  of  former  tenitorial  dona- 
tions. 

The  temporal  power  of  the  pope  had  its  real  origin  in  the 
unjust  aid  which  Pope  Zachary  afforded  to  Pepin  in  dethron- 
ing Childeric,  king  of  France,  and  usurping  the  crown  for 
himself.  Pepin,  in  order  to  attach  to  himself  the  powerful 
pontiff,  freed  him  from  the  yoke  of  the  Lombards  and 
conferred  on  him  sovereign  rights  over  the  Roman  dukedom. 
Charlemagne  completed  the  conquest  of  the  Lombards  and 
confirmed  and  enlarged  the  grant  which  his  father  Pepin  had 
made  to  the  pope. 

The  restoration  of  the  Roman  empire  in  the  West  by  the 
pope,  who  conferred  the  title  of  Roman  emperor  upon  Char- 


Revietv  of  the  Development  of  the  Papacy.      255 

lemagne,  and  crowned  him  solemnly  at  Eome,  added  im- 
mensely to  the  dignity  and  development  of  the  papal  au- 
thority. From  that  time  forward  the  popes  claimed  the 
right  to  confirm  and  crown  the  emperors.  Nothing,  how- 
ever, contributed  more  to  the  enlargement  of  the  papacy  than 
the  investiture  of  the  pope  and  the  bishops  with  temporal 
sovereignty  :  for  the  pope  had  now  the  means  of  enforcing 
his  spiritual  claims. 

He  was  greatly  favoured  in  the  enlargement  of  his  des- 
potic authority  by  the  exaggerated  views  v/hich  began  to  be 
entertained  in  the  eighth  century  of  the  terrible  potency  of  ex- 
communication. In  former  ages  excommunication  entailed, 
it  is  true,  many  disagreeable  results,  yet  the  excommunicated 
person  was  not  deprived  of  his  privileges  as  a  citizen,  or  of 
the  common  rights  of  humanity.  The  Northern  Nations 
brought  with  them  into  the  Church  their  high  and  mons- 
trous views  in  regard  to  ecclesiastical  excommunication. 
They  attributed  to  it  the  same  terrible  efiects  which  they  had 
believed  that  the  excommunication  of  their  pagan  priests 
brought  upon  the  accursed.  Hence  persons  who  were  exclud- 
ed from  the  communion  of  the  Church  by  the  pope  or  bishops 
forfeited  on  that  account,  not  only  all  their  civil  rights  as 
citizens,  but  also  the  common  privileges  of  humanity.  Ex- 
communication had  the  awful  effect  of  dissolving  all  con- 
nexions ;  it  meant  outla^vvry  from  all  society,  complete 
degradation  of  the  man.  King  or  prince,  under  this  fearful 
sentence,  not  only  lost  his  crown,  but  became  an  object  of 
aversion  to  all  his  subjects.  No  wonder  that  the  popes,  with 
such  a  weapon  in  their  hands,  could  go  onward  in  their 
march  for  absolute  and  unlimited  supremacy,  and  finally 
claim  to  be  supreme  lords  of  the  universe. 

Aj;ain  and  again  did  the  papacy  profit  and  grow  stronger 


256  Roman  Catholicism, 

by  the  disturbed  state  of  the  empire.  It  might  have  been 
a  blessing  to  the  world  and,  in  many  cases,  have  prevented 
war  and  bloodshed ;  but  in  order  to  obtain  its  sinister  ends 
it  often  plunged  nations  into  long  wars,  social  confusion,  and 
misery.  It  learned  its  first  lessons  of  temporal  aggrandize- 
ment in  the  fall  of  the  old  Boman  empire  j  success  embold- 
ened it  and,  through  a  long  series  of  centuries,  it  became  the 
universal  marplot — the  promoter  of  commotions  and  blood- 
shed amongst  the  European  nations.  Its  sole  aim  was  to  be- 
come a  powerful  and  universal  kingdom  of  this  tvorlcl.  It 
obtained  its  end  ;  but  how  much  misery  and  injustice  has  it 
to  answer  for  ! 

From  the  time  that  it  acquired  the  first  beginnings  of 
temporal  sovereignty,  we  have  to  look  upon  it  as  a  political 
institution  and  to  explain  almost  every  step  in  its  career  on 
political  grounds.  Its  history  exhibits  the  worst  features  of 
intrigue,  and  the  most  unblushing  knavery,  displayed  chiefly 
in  the  forgery  of  documents  to  sustain  its  enormous  pre- 
tensions. 

The  popes  could  never  have  succeeded  but  for  the  gross 
ignorance  and  superstition  which  for  many  centuries  covered 
the  European  nations  like  a  thick  cloud ;  for  spiritual  des- 
potism can  only  be  exercised  over  an  ignorant  and  super- 
stitious people. 

Another  important  step  was  made  by  the  pope  in  the 
direction  of  temporal  influence,  when  he  assumed  to  himself 
the  right  of  nomination  to  the  imperial  throne.  The  fierce 
and  bloody  war  that  broke  out  between  the  posterity  of 
Charlemagne,  after  the  death  of  Lewis  II.,  first  furnished 
him  with  an  opportunity  of  exercising  this  pretended  right. 
He  obtained  new  concessions  and  large  sums  of  money,  by 
appointing   successively,  Charles  the   Bold,  Carloman,  and 


Review  of  the  Development  of  the  Papacy,     257 

Charles  the  Fat.  After  the  death  of  these  Emperors,  the 
empire  was  rent  in  pieces;  the  greatest  confusion  reigned 
everywhere,  and  the  highest  bidder  was  generally  raised  to 
the  Imperial  throne  by  the  greedy  pontiffs. 

The  popes,  in  this  confused  state  of  things,  made  mighty 
strides  in  their  course  towards  universal  dominion.  Their  in- 
fluence, in  civil  affairs,  rose  in  a  short  time  to  an  extravagant 
height,  by  the  favour  of  kings  and  princes,  on  whose 
behalf  they  had  employed  the  authority  superstition  had 
given  them  over  the  minds  of  the  people.  From  the  same 
causes,  their  dominion  in  religious  matters  made  equal  pro- 
gress. From  the  time  of  Lewis  the  Meek,  the  ancient  rules 
of  ecclesiastical  government  were  gradually  changed  in  the 
West.  The  princes  lost  that  influence  in  Church-matters 
which  they  had  exercised  since  Charlemagne,  the  bishops 
their  independence,  and  the  general  and  provincial  councils 
their  authority.  By  every  means  in  his  power,  the  pope 
endeavoured  to  persuade  all  that  he  was  the  supreme  legis- 
lator and  universal  bishop  of  the  Church ;  that  all  bishops 
derived  their  powers  from  him )  that  all  councils,  both 
general  and  provincial,  had  no  authority  but  from  him,  and 
could  do  nothing  without  his  permission  and  consent. 

Of  course  all  these  pretensions  were  advanced  at  favour- 
able opportunities,  when  the  minds  of  the  people  had  been 
sufficiently  prepared  and  seemed  ripe  for  their  reception. 
But  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that  so  thorough  a  change 
in  the  government  of  the  Church  could  be  made  without  a 
certain  amount  of  opposition.  The  bishops  of  Rome  were 
aware  that  their  word  and  authority  alone  were  not  sufficient 
to  introduce  the  new  order  of  things.  They  knew  that  they 
must   produce    ancient  documents  by    which    they   might 

17 


258  Roman  Catholicism. 

justify  their  course.  And  as  there  were  no  such  documents 
in  existence,  they  forged  them. 

Forgery  was  not  a  new  art  to  the  Koman  pontiffs.  They 
had  forged  documents  before  the  ninth  century,  and  had 
been  successful.  Rome  had  been  habituated  to  it  by  a  long 
series  of  systematic  fabrications  extending  back  to  the  sixth 
century.  To  glorify  the  Roman  see,  spurious  Acts  of  Roman 
Martyrs  began  to  be  compiled,  at  the  beginning  of  the  sixth 
century,  and  were  produced  from  time  to  time,  afterwards, 
for  some  centuries.  For  a  similar  purpose  the  story  of  the 
Conversion  and  Baptism  of  Gonstantine  was  invented,  to 
make  Pope  Sylvester  appear  to  have  been  a  worker  of 
miracles.  About  514  the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Sinuessa,  The 
Legend  of  Pope  Marcellinus,  and  the  Constitution  of  Sylvester 
were  forged  to  prove  that  no  one  could  judge  the  Roman  see. 
The  Gesta  Liherii  and  the  Gesta  of  Sextus  III.  were  fabri- 
cated in  defence  of  these  popes.  The  works  of  St.  Cyprian 
were  interpolated  to  suit  the  pretensions  of  the  Roman 
bishop.  The  Liber  Pontificalis  was  another  forgery,  com- 
menced in  the  sixth  century,  and  continued  afterwards.  It 
was  devised  to  prove  the  "  Acts  of  the  Roman  Martyrs,"  to 
confirm  the  existing  legends  about  popes  and  emperors,  and 
to  exhibit  the  popes  as  legislators  for  the  whole  Church. 
After  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  the  famous  Donation 
of  Constantino  was  concocted  at  Rome,  in  order  to  induce 
Pepin  to  concede  temporal  sovereignty  to  the  bishop  of 
Rome.  Other  fabrications  appeared  soon  afterwards,  for 
the  purpose  of  persuading  Charlemagne  and  his  successors  to 
confirm  and  enlarge  the  temporal  power. 

We  may  say,  therefore,  that  Rome  was  the  hot-bed  of  for- 
gery and  continued  so  for  several  centuries.  When  the  popes 
of  the  ninth  century  desired  to  give  credit  to  their  new  ecclesi^ 


Review  of  the  Development  of  the  Papacy.      259 

astical  code,  they  were  not  at  any  loss  for  documents.  They 
forged  them ;  nay,  they  were  ready  at  hand  \  and  had 
already  been  forged  for  them.  A  writer  in  the  west  of  Gaul 
— about  845 — desirous  of  protecting  the  bishops  against  the 
metropolitans  and  secular  princes,  fabricated  a  large  number 
of  pretended  decrees  of  popes,  acts  of  councils,  and  other 
documents.  He  prefixed  to  them  the  venerated  name  of 
Isidore,  bishop  of  Seville,  in  order  to  make  it  appear  that  this 
great  man  had  collected  them.  He  completely  failed  of  his 
purpose ;  for  the  collection,  instead  of  freeing  the  bishops, 
completely  enslaved  them. 

These  spurious  decretals  became  a  powerful  instrument  in 
the  hands  of  Nicholas  I.  (858-867)  in  pushing  the  limits  of  the 
Roman  supremacy  to  the  point  of  absolute  monarchy.  This 
bold  and  aspiiing  pontiff  met  the  doubts  of  the  Frankish 
bishops,  who  opposed  them,  with  the  assurance  that  these 
documents  and  all  others  ever  issued  by  his  predecessors 
were  preserved  with  honour  in  the  Koman  archives.  And 
in  a  synod  held  at  Rome  (863)  he  anathematized  all  who 
should  refuse  to  receive  the  teaching  or  ordinances  of  a  pope. 

Hence  these  pseudo-Isidorian  decretals  became  the  found- 
ation of  the  papal  claims  to  supreme  dominion.  Never,  in 
all  history,  has  a  forgery  been  so  successful.  For  three 
centuries  now,  this  huge  fraud  has  been  exposed,  not  only  by 
Protestant,  but  also  by  Roman  Catholic  scholars ;  yet  the 
principles  it  introduced  have  taken  such  deep  root  in  the 
Church,  that  the  exposure  of 'the  fraud  has  produced  no 
tangible  effect  in  shaking  the  papal  system. 

After  the  seeds  of  the  new  ecclesiastical  code  had  thus 
been  sown  by  Nicholas  I.  a  blight  seems  to  have  fallen  upon 
the  papacy  for  the  next  two  hundred  years.  With  scarcely  an 
exception,  the  popes  of  this  period  were  so  many  monsters, 


260  Roman  Catholicism, 

not  men,  pretending  to  be  heads  of  the  Church  and  con- 
secrated to  the  service  of  religion.  They  were  guilty  of  the 
most  flagitious  crimes,  as  Roman  Catholics  themselves  admit. 
The  Roman  see  became  the  prey  and  plaything  of  rival 
factions  of  nobles  and  even  of  dissolute  women.  For  a  long 
time,  the  Tuscan  counts  made  the  pontificate  hereditary 
in  their  family.  Again  and  again  profligate  boys  occupied 
and  disgraced  the  Roman  see,  until,  at  length,  when  three 
popes  were  contending  for  the  papal  chair,  the  Emperor 
Henry  III.  put  an  end  to  the  scandal  by  elevating  a  German 
bishop  to  the  papacy. 

With  Leo  IX.  commenced  the  Hildebrandine  era  of  the 
papacy.  Two  centuries  had  elapsed  since  Nicholas  I.,  on  the 
basis  of  the  pseudo-Isidorian  forgeries,  had  introduced  a  new 
ecclesiastical  code.  In  the  state  of  corruption  and  ignorance 
which  followed,  the  seed  had  taken  firm  root  in  the  Church. 
Everyone  now  accepted  the  false  decretals  as  authentic  and 
true ;  yet  the  Church  lay  prostrate.  The  evil  must  be 
remedied  ;  and  a  still  greater  concentration  of  power  in  the 
Roman  pontifl",  by  the  establishment  of  an  absolute  spiritual 
monarchy  was  looked  upon  as  the  only  remedy.  A  power- 
ful party  was  formed  in  the  Church,  of  which  Hildebrand  was 
the  leader,  which  laboured  with  all  its  might  to  weld  together 
all  the  Christian  states  into  a  theocratic  priest-kingdom,  with 
the  pope  at  its  head.  It  was  the  aim  of  this  party  not  only 
to  render  the  pope  the  absolute  and  supreme  monarch  in  all 
spiritual  matters,  as  bishop  of  bishops,  but  also  to  make  him 
the  king  of  kings  and  to  emancipate  the  Church  altogether 
from  the  control  of  princes  and  people.  It  was  held  that  he 
possessed  the  power  of  creating  and  deposing  kings,  and  of 
giving  away  whole  kingdoms  to  whomsoever  he  pleased. 
Hildebrand  was  the  adviser  of  Leo  IX.,  and  his  immediate 


Review  of  the  Developmejtt  of  the  Papacy,     261 

rsuccessors.  At  his  instigation,  Nicholas  II.  gave  Calabria 
and  Sicily  to  Kobert  Guiscard,  duke  of  Apulia,  on  condition 
that,  as  a  faithful  vassal,  he  should  acknowledge  an  inviolable 
allegiance  and  fealty  to  the  Eoman  see.  There  was  no 
earthly  reason  justifying  this  act,  except  that  the  pope  had 
the  whole  universe  for  his  domain.  He,  also,  advised  the 
same  pontiff  to  give  the  election  of  the  pope  altogether  into 
the  hands  of  the  cardinals  and  to  deprive  the  emperor  and 
the  people  of  any  voice  in  the  matter. 

Hildebrand  succeeded  Alexander  II.,  and  assumed  the  title 
of  Gregory  YII.  I  shall  say  nothing,  in  this  brief  outline,  of 
his  character  ;  for  it  is  well  known  to  every  reader  of  history. 
*'  None  of  his  predecessors  is  like  unto  him.  If  they  had 
ambitious  ends  in  view,  they  never  rose  to  the  highest 
pinnacle  in  their  pretensions,  nor  did  they  set  them  forth 
with  sufficient  clearness  and  distinctness  \  their  aims  were 
high,  but  hazy  and  confused.  But  Gregory  VII.  knew  what 
he  was  about.  He  alone  of  all  the  popes  may  be  said  to 
have  had  the  clear  and  determinate  purpose  of  introducing  a 
new  constitution  for  the  Church  and  by  new  means.  Nicholas 
I.  alone  approaches  him  in  this,  but  none  of  the  later  popes, 
all  of  whom  have  only  followed  him  as  their  leader  and 
carried  out  the  plans  which  he  laid  down." 

"  Gregory  saw  from  the  first  that  synods  regularly  held  by 
the  popes,  and  new  codes  of  Church  law,  were  the  means  for 
introducing  the  new  system.  Synods  had  been  held,  at  his 
suggestion,  by  Leo  IX.  and  his  successors,  and  he  himself 
carried  on  the  work  in  those  assembled  after  1073.  But  only 
popes  and  their  legates  were  henceforth  to  hold  synods  ;  in 
every  other  form  the  institution  was  to  disappear.  Gregory 
collected  about  him  by  degrees  the  right  men  for  elaborating 
his  system  of  Church-law.     Anselm  of  Lucca,  nephew   of 


262  Roman  Catholicism. 

Alexander  II.,  compiled  a  most  important  and  compreliensive 
•work,  at  his  command,  between  1080  and  1086.  Anselm 
may  be  called  the  founder  of  the  new  Gregorian  system  of 
Church-law,  first,  by  extracting  and  putting  into  convenient 
working  shape  everything  in  the  Isidorian  forgeries  service- 
able to  the  papal  absolutism ;  next,  by  altering  the  law  of 
the  Church,  through  a  tissue  of  fresh  inventions  and  inter- 
polations, in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  his  party 
and  from  the  stand-point  of  Gregory.  Then  came  Deusdedit, 
whom  Gregory  made  a  cardinal,  with  fresh  inventions.  At 
the  same  time  Bonizo  compiled  his  work,  the  main  object  of 
which  was  to  exalt  the  papal  prerogative.  The  forty  pro- 
positions or  titles  of  this  part  of  his  work  correspond  entirely 
to  Gregory's  Dictatus  and  the  materials  supplied  by  Anselm 
and  Deusdedit.  The  last  great  work  of  the  Gregorians 
(before  Gratian)  was  the  Polycarpus  of  Cardinal  Gregory  of 
Pa  via  (before  1118),  which  almost  always  adheres  to  Anselm 
in  its  falsifications."  (The  Pope  and  the  Council,  hy  JanuSf 
'page  82.) 

"  Clearly  and  cautiously  as  the  Gregorian  party  went  to 
work,  they  lived  in  a  world  of  dreams  and  illusions  about  the 
past  and  about  remote  countries.  They  could  not  escape  the 
imperative  necessity  of  demonstrating  their  new  system  to 
have  been  the  constant  practice  of  the  Church,  and  it  is 
difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  distinguish  where  involuntary 
delusion  merged  into  conscious  deceit.  Whatever  present 
exigencies  required  was  selected  from  the  mythical  stores  at 
their  command  hastily  and  recklessly ;  then  fresh  inventions 
were  added,  and  soon  every  claim  of  Rome  could  be  shown 
to  have  a  legitimate  foundation  in  ^.xisting  records  and 
decrees."     (Ihid.,  page  8^.) 

**  It  is  so  far  true  to  say,  that  without  the  pseudo-Isidore 


Review  of  the  Development  of  the  Papacy.      263 

tKere  would  have  been  no  Gregory  YII.,  that  the  Isidorian 
forgeries  were  the  broad  foundation  upon  which  the  Grego- 
rians  built.  But  the  first  object  of  Isidore  was  to  secure  the 
impunity  of  bishops,  whereas  the  "Roman  party — which  for 
a  long  time  had  a  majority  of  the  bishops  against  it — wanted 
to  introduce  a  state  of  things  in  which  the  popes  or  their 
legates  could  summarily  depose  bishops,  intimidate  them, 
and  reduce  them  to  complete  subjection  to  the  papal  behests. 
The  newly  invented  doctrines  about  the  deposing  power  con- 
tributed to  this  end.  In  a  word,  a  new  history  and  a  new 
civil  and  canon  law  were  requii^ed,  and  both  had  to  be 
obtained  by  improving  on  the  Isidorian  principles  with  new 
forgeries.  The  corruption  of  history  was  to  some  extent 
provided  for  in  Germany  by  the  monk  Bernold,  and  in  Italy 
by  the  zealous  Gregorian  Bonizo,  bishop  of  Piacenza,  who 
tried,  among  other  things,  to  get  rid  of  the  coronation  of 
Charles  the  Great.  The  other  assistants  had  to  invent  or 
adapt  historical  facts  for  party  purposes,  for  their  new  codes 
of  Chiu'ch-law  innovated  largely  upon  ancient  Church- 
precedent.  Gregory  himself  had  his  own  little  stock  of 
fabricated  or  distorted  facts  to  support,  pretensions  and  under- 
takings which  seemed  to  his  contemporaries  strange  and 
unauthorized." 

"  At  the  same  time  Gregory  thought  it  most  important, 
with  all  his  legislative  activity,  lofty  claims,  and  high-handed 
measures,  not  to  seem  too  much  of  an  innovator  and  despot ; 
he  constantly  affii'med  that  he  only  wished  to  restore  the 
ancient  laws  of  the  Church  and  to  abolish  recent  abuses. 
When  he  drew  out  the  whole  system  of  papal  omnipotence 
in  twenty-seven  theses  in  his  Dictatus,  those  theses  were 
partly  repetitions  or  corollaries  of  the  Isidorian  decretals ; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  he  and  his  friends  and  allies  sought 


26*  Roman  Catholicisin, 

to  give  them  the  appearance  of  tradition  and  antiquity  by 
new  fictions."     (^Ihid.^  page  84-86). 

"We  might  continue  quoting  from  this  erudite  work  and 
show  how,  by  the  aid  of  well-fabricated  forgeries,  Gregory 
and  his  co-workers  imposed  their  new  constitution  upon  the 
Church. 

Nor  was  he  remiss  in  enforcing  his  claims,  with  all  bold- 
ness and  against  all  opposition.  Whenever  it  appeared 
possible,  he  endeavoured  to  engage  in  the  bonds  of  allegiance 
to  the  Koman  see  the  kings  and  princes  of  Christendom. 
Here  he  met  with  strong  opposition,  but  nevertheless  proved 
successful  in  a  number  of  cases. 

It  was  the  policy  of  this  haughty  and  imperious  pontiff  to 
resort  constantly  to  extreme  measures  in  enforcing  his 
decrees  against  abuses.  Thus,  to  eradicate  the  vice  of  concu- 
binage from  among  the  clergy,  he  enforced  complete  celibacy, 
punishing  not  only  the  guilty  but  also  the  innocent,  by  com- 
pelling them  to  send  away  their  lawful  wives,  without  delay. 
By  thus  destroying  all  family-ties  of  the  clergy,  he  thought  to 
render  them  more  devoted  to  the  Church ;  but  it  cannot  be 
questioned  that  enforced  celibacy  has  been  a  fruitful  cause 
of  immorality  in  the  Church  of  Kome. 

Moreover,  in  order  to  repress  the  vice  of  simony  connected 
with  the  investiture  of  bishops  and  abbots  who  held  temporal 
domains,  he  adopted  the  extreme  measure  of  depriving  the 
emperor,  kings  and  princes  of  all  voice  and  control  in  nomi- 
nating to  vacant  bishoprics  and  benefices.  And  when  the 
emperor  Henry  IV.  resisted  the  most  odious  provisions  of 
the  papal  decree,  Gregory  deposed  him,  absolving  his  sub- 
jects from  the  oath  of  allegiance,  and  treating  him  in  the  most 
shameful  manner.  At  the  pope's  instigation,  another  emperor 
was  elected  and  confirmed  by  him.     Thus  the  whole  empire 


Review  of  the  Development  of  the  Papacy,     265 

was  plunged  into  the  horrors  of  a  civil  war,  which  lasted  for 
many  years.  In  a  word,  the  whole  activity  of  this  unscrupu- 
lous but  powerful  pope  was  employed  not  only  in  tyranniz- 
ing over  all  orders  of  the  Church,  but  also  in  aiming  deadly 
blows  at  the  thrones  of  emperors,  kings,  and  princes.  His 
pontificate  was  a  continual  scene  of  tumult  and  bloodshed,  all 
occasioned  by  his  ambitious  arrogance. 

From  Gregory  YII.  to  Boniface  VIII.  (1073-1294)  the 
papacy  was  at  the  zenith  of  its  power  and  glory.  It  is  the 
golden  period  of  papal  supremacy  over  Church  and  State. 
They  acted  as  lords  of  the  universe,  establishing  kingdoms 
and  giving  them  away  at  pleasure,  deposing  emperors  and 
kings  and  absolving  subjects  from  the  oath  of  allegiance; 
and  stirring  up  the  most  deadly  wars  wherever  their 
authority  was  contradicted.  They  endeavoured,  by  all 
means  at  their  command,  to  make  the  whole  world  a  theo- 
cratic priest-kingdom  \  and  we  may  truly  affirm  that  the 
Roman  pontifis  were  at  the  bottom  of  nearly  all  the  wars 
which  deluged  Europe  with  blood,  during  this  period  of  papal 
absolutism.  A  desperate  struggle  was  going  on  between  the 
empire  and  the  priesthood,  the  popes  advancing  their  mon- 
strous pretensions  with  characteristic  power  and  cunning ; 
the  emperors  and  princes,  on  the  other  hand,  using  their 
utmost  efibrts  to  disconcert  their  measures  and  to  curb  their 
power.  The  effect  of  these  unhappy  dissensions  was  felt 
throughout  all  the  European  nations.  Who,  we  ask,  is 
answerable  for  the  cruel  civil  wars  that  were  caused  by  the 
deposition  of  emperors  and  kings,  and  the  absolving  of  sub- 
jects from  the  oath  of  allegiance,  but  the  haughty  bishops  of 
Rome  %  What  else  caused  the  long  and  bitter  contests  be- 
tween the  Guelphs  and  Ghibellines,  but  the  determined  reso- 
lution of  the  popes  to  establish  and  maintain  their  lordly 


266  Roman  Catholicism. 

ascendancy  %  And  who,  in  countries  beyond  the  limits  of 
the  Koman  empire,  were  the  chief  instigators  of  political 
conspiracies,  who  fomented  civil  strife  and  contention,  but 
the  Roman  pontiffs  who  were  everywhere  present,  through 
the  agency  of  crafty  and  unscrupulous  emissaries  and  legates  % 
Let  the  impartial  student  of  history  answer. 

Koman  Catholics  justify  the  deposing  power  of  the  pope 
and  his  constant  interference  in  the  secular  government  of 
kingdoms,  on  the  pretext  that  it  formed  part  of  the  interna- 
tional law  of  those  times ;  that  it  was  a  right  accorded  to 
him  by  the  European  nations  :  in  a  word,  that  the  pope  was 
looked  upon  as  a  sort  of  international  king  and  as  the  uni- 
versal arbitrator  between  contending  parties. 

We  answer  that  this  justification  contradicts  the  plainest 
facts  of  history.  No  ;  the  secular  governments,  far  from 
according  to  the  popes  this  power,  strenuously  resisted  it ; 
hence  those  wars  and  tumults.  On  the  other  hand,  the  popes 
claimed  it  as  a  sacred  right  inherent  in  their  office  as  heads 
of  the  Church.  They  cherished  it  as  a  token  and  evidence 
of  the  plentitude  of  their  power.  The  bulls — and  they  are 
numerous — in  which  they  assert  and  exercise  this  pretended 
power,  do  not  utter  the  language  of  a  mere  arbitrator,  whose 
authority  depends  on  the  consent  of  the  contending  parties. 
Consent  of  the  contending  parties,  indeed  !  Why,  it  was  the 
pope  himself  who  in  most  cases  occasioned  disputes,  by  his 
encroaching  and  ambitious  pretensions,  and  then  used  the 
lash  on  the  party  that  contradicted  him.  It  was  the  pope 
who  claimed  as  his  possessions  and  fiefs  all  the  kingdoms  of 
the  world,  by  virtue  of  his  supreme  headship  over  the 
Church.  It  was  the  pope  who,  under  the  pretext  of  his  in- 
herent power,  created  new  kingdoms,  and  appointed  kings 
and  princes  over  them    It  was  the  pope  who  asserted  that  none 


Review  of  the  Development  of  the  Papacy.      267 

could  rule  without  his  consent,  approval,  and  supervision. 
There  is  no  semblance  of  any  international  law,  during  the 
period  of  the  papal  ascendancy,  nominating  the  pope  an  arbi- 
trator between  the  nations.  True,  they  often  did  good  by 
their  timely  and  opportune  interference  in  secular  matters, 
in  those  distracted  times ;  but  we  cannot  shut  our  eyes  to 
the  immense  mischief  they  inflicted  on  the  superstitious  and 
long-sufiering  peoples  of  Europe,  Most  certainly  they  laid 
claim  to  this  immense  power  solely  in  virtue  of  their  office. 

But  to  retui-n  to  our  narrative.  Let  us  touch  upon  the 
principal  features  of  the  development  of  the  papacy,  during 
the  period  of  its  highest  splendour. 

After  the  death  of  Gregory  VII.,  the  same  restless 
element  continued  to  disturb  both  Church  and  state.  The 
policy,  which  he  had  inaugurated,  of  introducing  a  new  con- 
stitution into  the  Church,  and  of  rendering  the  papacy 
supreme  in  all  matters,  both  ecclesiastical  and  temporal,  was 
steadily  and  unflinchingly  pursued  by  his  successors.  The 
contest  about  investitures  went  on  with  unabated  bitterness. 
Urban  II.  was  not  behind  Gregory  in  arrogance  and  pride  \ 
h(}  even  surpassed  him  in  bold  and  audacious  measures.  In 
tlie  famous  council  of  Clermont,  where  he  kindled  a  new^ 
war  against  the  Mohammedan  possessors  of  the  Holy  Land, 
L.e  published  a  law  forbidding  the  bishops  and  the  rest  of  the 
clergy  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  their  respective 
sovereigns. 

Paschal  II.  was  another  instance  of  insatiable  and  in- 
flexible papal  ambition.  He  not  only  renewed  the  extreme 
measures  of  his  predecessors  against  investitures  and  the  ex- 
communications against  Henry  lY.  ;  but  it  is  believed  that 
he  instigated  an  unnatural  son  of  this  unhappy  and  pope- 
persecuted  emperor  to  rebel  against  his  father  and  to  ascend 


268  Roman  Catholicism. 

the  imperial  throne  under  the  name  of  Henry  V.  It  is.  at 
least,  unquestionably  certain  that  Paschal  II.  dissolved  the 
oath  of  allegiance  which  Henry  had  taken  to  his  father,  and 
adopted  the  cause  of  this  unnatural  rebel. 

During  the  space  of  fifty-five  years,  after  the  death  of 
Gregory  YII.,  the  papal  chair  was  occupied  by  monks  who 
governed  like  monks.  Not  only  were  they  of  obscure  birth 
and  of  unbounded  avarice  and  ambition,  but  as  heads  of  the 
Church,  they  displayed  that  unbending  temper  and  obstinacy, 
which  are  essential  ingredients  in  the  character  of  a  monk. 
It  was  not  until  Guy,  archbishop  of  Vienna,  duke  of  Bur- 
gundy, and  a  near  relative  of  the  emperor,  a  man  of  an 
ingenuous  and  magnanimous  character  and  liberal  education, 
was  raised  to  the  papal  throne,  under  the  name  of  Calixtus 
II.  (in  1120),  that  the  question  concerning  investitures  was 
finally  settled.  A  little  moderation  was  all  that  was  re- 
quired for  this  purpose.  If  his  predecessors  had  possessed 
even  a  modicum  of  that  quality,  torrents  of  blood  and  thou- 
sands of  valuable  lives  would  have  been  saved. 

The  contest  between  the  emperors  and  popes  was  renewed 
under  Hadrian  IV.  (in  1155),  a  native  of  England,  whose 
former  name  was  Nicholas  Breakspear;  it  increased  in 
vehemence  under  Alexander  III.,  who  loaded  the  emperor 
Frederick  Barbarossa  with  anathemas  and  execrations,  de- 
posed him  in  the  year  1167,  and  exhorted  his  subjects  to 
shake  oflf  the  yoke.  Alexander's  success  in  his  contest  with 
the  proud  emperor  raised  the  papacy  to  an  enormous  height. 
This  pope,  like  some  of  his  predecessors,  exercised  the  pre- 
tended right  of  erecting  new  kingdoms,  by  conferring  the 
title  of  king  upon  Alfonso  I.,  duke  of  Portugul. 

But  the  papacy  reached  the  highest  pitch  of  power  under 
Innocent  III.,  who  became  pope  in  the  year  1198.     Circum- 


Review  of  the  Development  of  the  Papacy.     269 

stances  enabled  him  to  enlarge  his  own  immediate  temporal 
dominion,  the  states  of  the  Church.  He  claimed  to  be  the 
supreme  lord  over  all  kingdoms  ;  and  whenever  a  favourable 
opportunity  presented  itself,  he  asserted  this  outrageous  claim. 
He  gave  a  King  to  the  Armenians;  and,  in  1204,  erected 
Bohemia  into  a  kingdom,  and  bestowed  the  royal  dignity 
upon  Primislaus.  He  appointed  the  Duke  of  Bulgaria  and 
Wallachia  king  over  that  territory,  and  crowned  Peter  II. 
king  of  Arragon.  But  above  all,  he  endeavoured  to 
exercise  lordship  over  the  emperor  and  other  powerful  kings 
of  Europe.  And  when  these  princes  resisted  his  ambitious 
and  overbearing  interference,  he  hurled  sentences  of  excom- 
munication and  depositions  against  them,  which  took  terrible 
effect  in  desolation  and  bloodshed.  No  monarch  felt  more 
severely  the  galling  despotism  of  this  haughty  pontiff  than 
John,  surnamed  Sans  Terre,  king  of  England. 

Thus  the  papacy  went  on  in  its  glory,  acquiring  constantly 
new  power  and  consolidating  what  it  had  acquired,  up  to  the 
time  of  Boniface  YIII.  in  1294.  This  arrogant  pontiff  car- 
ried the  pretensions  of  the  papacy  to  a  height  somewhat  akin 
to  frenzy.  His  bulls  are  an  everlasting  monument  of  the 
abuse  of  spiritual  power,  of  monstrous  pretension  and  undis- 
guised absolutism.  But  Philip  the  Fair,  king  of  France, 
knew  how  to  subdue  the  pretentious  pope ;  and  after  his 
death  the  papal  residence  was  transferred  to  Avignon,  where 
it  remained  for  seventy  years. 

Let  us  pause  here  for  a  moment  and  enquire  into  the 
causes  which,  after  Gregory  VII.,  mainly  contributed  to  in- 
crease and  consolidate  the  absolutism  of  the  popes. 

The  revival  of  the  Roman  law  in  the  twelfth  century  af- 
forded an  excuse  to  the  Roman  pontiffs  and  their  adherents 
for  having  the  canon  law  placed  on  the  same  honourable 


270  Roman  Catholicism. 

footing.  With  this  view,  Gratian,  a  Benedictine  monk 
of  Bologna,  about  1130,  composed  an  epitome  of  canon  law 
for  the  use  of  schools.  Gratian  made  this  collection  from  the 
Isidorian  forgeries,  and  from  the  writings  of  those  who  as- 
sisted Hildebrand  in  introducing  the  new  Church  constitu- 
tion. It  goes  by  the  name  of  Decretum  Gratiani.  And  as 
it  had  for  its  object  the  establishment  and  justification  of 
papal  absolutism,  it  was  patronized  by  the  popes,  although  it 
abounded  in  the  grossest  errors.  Almost  immediately  after 
its  appearance,  it  became  the  standard  work  on  canon  law 
and  its  authority  was  appealed  to  as  final.  No  book  has 
contributed  more  towards  advancing  the  absolute  power  of 
the  popes  than  this  consolidation  of  forgeries.  Several  other 
books  of  papal  decrees  were  afterwards  appended  by  different 
popes,  so  as  to  make  the  collection  of  the  corpus  juris  canonici 
complete.  Canon-law  becaiae  the  favourite  study  of  the 
clergy ;  and  all  who  sought  to  obtain  ecclesiastical  preferment 
in  the  Roman  curia,  were  required  to  be  proficients  in  this 
science.  All  the  so-called  learning,  thus  disseminated, 
worked  in  the  interest  of  the  papal  system ;  for  every  part 
of  the  canon-law  made  for  Home  and  gave  renewed  power  to 
the  pope. 

The  crusades,  which  were  carried  on  during  this  period  of 
papal  splendour,  brought  with  them  a  new  source  of  influence 
to  the  Roman  pontiffs.  The  whole  of  Europe  felt  an  earnest 
interest  in  these  holy  wars.  The  popes  were]their  anima- 
ting soul ;  they  appointed  the  leaders,  awarded  privileges  to 
the  crusaders,  and  adjusted  the  system  of  penances  and  in- 
dulgences. They  were  the  superiors  of  those  powerful  mili- 
tary orders  which  originated  during  the  period  of  the  crusades 
and  spread  their  ramifications  throughout  Europe.  All  this 
gave  additional  weight  to  the  authority  of  the  popes, 


Review  of  the  Development  of  the  Papacy.      271 

Moreover,  the  two  great  universities  of  the  world,  Paris 
and  Bologna,  which  were  in  the  hands  of  the  monks,  the 
faithful  allies  of  the  popes,  were  under  complete  papal  con- 
trol and  performed  their  part  in  advancing  the  power  of  the 
spiritual  monarchy.  Then  again  the  new  religious  orders  of 
mendicant  friars  contributed  more  effectually  perhaps  than 
any  other  agency  to  undermine  the  old  Church-system  and 
to  introduce  the  new  order  of  things,  in  which  they  were  to 
rule  together  with  the  pope.  The  most  absolute  and  over- 
bearing popes  were  monks  themselves,  and  had  nothing  in 
common  with  the  bishops  and  parish-priests. 

After  the  removal  of  the  papal  residence  to  Avignon,  the 
authority  of  the  popes  commenced  to  decline.  Then  followed 
the  long  schism  of  forty  years,  which  still  further  lowered  it 
in  the  estimation  of  Christendom.  The  councils  of  Con- 
stance and  Basle  healed  the  schism,  by  declaring  the  general 
council,  i.e.  the  Church,  superior  to  the  popes.  The  newly 
elected  pope,  Martin  Y.,  and  his  successor,  Eugenius  IV., 
approved  these  decrees,  and  thus  condemned  in  advance  the 
recent  Vatican  council. 

But  why  did  not  the  nations  throw  off  the  yoke  of  the 
papacy  since  they  had  so  bitterly  experienced  the  curse  it 
had  brought  on  all  Christendom  1  Alas  !  they  were  not  yet 
ripe  for  that  important  step ;  they  were  still  too  much  tram- 
meled by  ecclesiastical  traditionalism  :  in  a  word,  they  knew 
no  other  Church-system  than  the  papacy.  They  knew  that  it 
had  deeply  fallen,  and  that  it  was  the  fruitful  source  of  dis- 
cord and  corruption  in  the  Church,  but  they  fancied  that  it 
could  be  reformed. 

Reformed  !  They  were  deceived  ;  the  papacy  is  irreform- 
able,  for  a  pestilential  and  intoxicating  air  seems  to  surround 
the  papal  throne.     So  soon   as   they  had  set  it  on  its 


272      .  Roman  Catholicism, 

again,  so  soon  as  it  was  able  to  stand,  it  kicked  against  the 
reforming  decrees  and  tendencies  of  these  councils  and  re- 
pudiated their  authority.  A  papal  reaction  took  place 
almost  immediately,  which  resisted  every  attempt  at  reform. 
The  papacy  relapsed  into  its  former  corruption.  Christendom 
was  compelled  to  see  the  papal  throne  occupied  by  an  Alex- 
ander VI.,  who  scandalized  the  Church  by  the  most  notorious 
crimes  and  degrading  vices,  and  was  infinitely  worse  than  any 
pope  who  flourished  during  the  pornocracy  of  the  eleventh 
century.     The  papal  yoke  became  more  galling  than  ever. 

Hence  we  are  not  astonished  that,  when  the  humble  and 
resolute  monk  of  Wittenberg  raised  his  eloquent  voice  boldly 
against  the  papacy,  millions  were  ready  to  join  him  in  the 
noble  crusade.  The  reformation  inflicted  a  severe,  but  not 
deadly,  blow  on  the  papacy.  Its  absolutism  was  crippled ; 
but  it  entered  on  a  new  path  of  pretension.  Henceforth  the 
claim  to  infallibility  was  set  forth  as  the  panacea  for  curing 
all  its  ills,  as  a  means  of  regaining  the  ground  it  had  lost 
and  of  inspiring  the  members  of  the  Church  with  renewed 
confidence.     Let  us  consider  this  claim  in  our  next  lecture. 

Men  and  brethren,  does  not  the  history  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  papacy  clearly  show  that  the  Christian  Church 
as  an  outward  and  visible  institution  is  not  endowed  with  the 
gift  of  infallibility  %  History  teaches  that  the  papacy  is  a 
huge  imposition — a  glaring  lie.  The  Church  sanctioned  this 
monster  lie  and  became  identified  with  it.  How  can  any  one 
maintain,  after  this,  that  she  is  infallible  %  The  very  exist- 
ence of  the  papacy  within  the  Church,  nay,  at  the  very  head 
of  the  Church  is  the  strongest  refutation  of  the  doctrine  of 
Church  infallibility. 


LECTUEE   V- 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  PAPAL 
INFALLIBILITY. 

IN"  our  last  two  lectures,  we  considered  the  principal  features 
in  the  development  of  papal  absolutism,  and  saw  how 
from  small  beginnings  it  grew  to  be  an  all-absorbing  power. 
But  mere  absolutism  does  not  close  the  history  of  papal 
development.  Secular  power  may  rest  when  it  has  reached 
the  apex  of  despotism,  and  rely  on  its  might.  But  spiritual 
absolutism  has  no  raison  d^etre  and  no  reasonable  and  firm 
hold  on  the  conscience,  unless  it  lays  claim  to  the  gift  of 
infallibility.  Inerrancy  must  needs  be  the  foundation  of  an 
absolute  spiritual  monarchy. 

The  popes  knew  and  felt  this  exigency.  Hence  we  observe 
that,  from  the  very  beginning,  and  whilst  they  were  aiming 
at  universal  and  supreme  dominion,  they  put  forth  also  their 
claim  to  infallibility,  timidly  and  obscurely  at  first,  but  with 
gradually  increasing  firmness  afterwards. 

Circumstances  favoured  their  efforts  to  obtain  absolute 
power,  but  the  Church's  acknowledgment  and  endorsement 
of  their  personal  infallibility  remained  unconceded  ;  indeed, 
the  Church  resisted  this  claim.  She  had  discovered,  by  bitter 
experience,  that  papal  absolutism  was  the  source  of  all  her 
ills.  Whence  arose  that  scandalous  condition  of  the  papacy, 
commonly  called  the  E,oman  t  nomocracy,  and  the  consequen 

18 


274  Roman  Catholicism, 

prostration  of  the  Church  which  commenced  with  the  preten- 
sions of  Nicholas  I.  and  lasted  for  more  than  two  centuries, 
but  from  the  intoxication  of  absolute  power  %  Whence  those 
civil  broils,  and  those  torrents  of  blood,  under  such  popes  as 
Gregory  YII.,  Paschal  II.,  Alexander  III.,  Innocent  III., 
Boniface  YIII.,  and  others,  but  from  the  abuse  of  papal 
absolutism  %  Whence  the  many  schisms,  especially  the 
long  one  lasting  forty  years,  but  from  the  excessive  thirst  of 
the  popes  for  despotic  power  %  What  do  the  Councils  of 
Constance  and  Basle  mean,  but  a  rising  of  the  Church 
above  the  prevailing  absolutism  of  the  papacy,  and  a  stern 
resolve  to  apply  the  remedy  to  abuses  %  Where  would  the 
popedom  now  be,  into  what  fearful  abyss  would  it  have  sunk, 
had  not  the  Church  come  to  its  rescue,  in  the  Council  of  Con- 
stance, by  proving  herself  superior  to  it  and  claiming  her 
pristine  rights  %  But  alas  !  the  Church  was  too  feeble  ;  and 
papal  absolutism  had  taken  too  deep  root.  She  only  clipped 
the  wings  of  the  papacy ;  they  soon  grew  again,  and  its 
pretensions  became  as  vigorous  and  lofty  as  ever  whilst  the 
Church  appeared  to  sink  more  and  more  into  hopeless  cor- 
ruption. 

But  no  !  God  is  with  her.  She  suffered  and  lay  prostrate 
but  she  will  rise  again.  Whence  those  mighty  risings  of  the 
sixteenth  century  %  Whence  the  grand  upheaval  of  the 
Keformation  %  It  is  the  Church  which  is  in  the  agonies  of 
new  birth.  She  is  wrestling  to  be  free  from  the  intolerable 
yoke  of  papal  despotism.  She  comes  out  from  the  popedom 
and  leaves  it  far  behind  in  the  gloom  of  the  past.  She  can- 
not convert  it  to  the  truth,  nor  is  she  able  to  destroy  it ;  for 
it  is  too  wealthy  and  too  mighty  in  temporal  resources ;  in 
short,  it  is  a  kingdom  of  this  world. 

All  that  she  can  do  is  to  protest  against  its  absolutism  and 


Development  of  the  Doctrine  of  Infallibility.     275 

corruption.  But  her  protest  is  powerless  and  the  papacy- 
remains.  Too  many  have  a  worldly  interest  wrapped  up  in 
its  continued  existence.  It  persecutes,  and  wages  cruel  wars 
against  the  Reformation ;  it  calls  to  its  aid  the  bloody 
inquisition,  and  where  the  reformed  Churches  cannot  be 
reached  by  open  hostility,  it  sends  out  its  secret  emissaries 
to  intrigue  or  sow  the  seeds  of  discord  amongst  them. 

Secret  emissaries!  yes, ^ Rome  has  always  had  its  secret 
emissaries.  From  the  very  beginning  of  popedom,  the  monks 
have  been  its  faithful  allies  and  secret  tools.  They  always 
acknowledged  in  the  pope  their  absolute  master  and  liberal 
patron.  From  him  and  through  him  they  enjoyed  honour, 
wealth,  immunities,  and  privileges.  If  it  had  not  been  for 
the  monks,  there  would  be  no  papal  absolutism.  If  the  old 
orders  proved  unequal  to  new  emergencies,  new  ones  were 
called  into  existence. 

Thus,  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  the  order  of  the 
Jesuits  took  its  rise  to  assist  the  papacy  against  its  enemies, 
and  to  defend  its  threatened  cause.  No  order  of  monks  was 
ever  so  well  adapted  to  secure  the  final  triumph  of  hierarchical 
monarchy  as  the  Society  of  Jesus.  They  received  within 
their  body  none  but  those  who  could  be  made  really  useful 
— they  discarded  altogether  the  proverbial  laziness  of  the 
monks.  Only  men  of  more  than  ordinary  talent  and  genius 
were  accepted  within  their  ranks.  Their  policy  was  prudence, 
but  that  prudence  soon  degenerated  into  craftiness  and 
cunning.  Their  guiding  and  supreme  purpose  was  to  advance 
the  interests  of  the  Roman  Church  both  within  and  with- 
out her  pale.  They  went  forth  as  zealous  missionaries  to  the 
Indies  and  the  new  World  ;  and  we  find  them  in  Protestant 
countries,  in  all  disguises,  like  cunning  serpents,  struggling 
to  undo  the  work  of  the  Reformation.  We  cannot  deny  that 


276  Roman  Catholicism, 

Jesuitism  has  been  the  greatest  foe  of  Protestantism  and  are 
forced  to  acknowledge  that  on  many  occasions  it  has  proved 
only  too  successful  in  its  assaults. 

But  within  the  pale  of  the  Koman  Church  itself  the  Jesuits 
have  been  a  mighty  power.  The  question  of  papal  infallibi- 
lity has  been,  par  excellence,  their  question  ',  they  espoused  it 
with  all  their  indomitable  energy  and  brought  it  to  a  success- 
ful issue,  after  toiling  long  to  ^xe^are  the  Church's  mind  for 
its  dogmatic  definition.  It  would  have  been  wholly  incon- 
sistent with  the  principles  of  their  order  to  acquiesce  in  any 
half-and-half  views  on  the  question  of  papal  infallibility. 
The  Jesuit  is  bound  to  yield  a  blind  obedience  to  his  superiors ; 
he  undergoes  a  severe  novitiate  in  which  he  is  trained  to 
this  perfect  submission  of  his  will.  He  sees  the  highest 
perfection  of  piety  in  submitting  his  understanding  to  that  oi 
another ;  the  highest  sacrifice,  according  to  his  views,  and 
the  sacrifice  most  acceptable  to  God,  consists  in  surrendering 
intellect  and  will  in  blind  subjection  to  another.  The  Jesuit 
order  is  modelled  after  the  E-oman  hierarchy ;  what  the  pope 
is  in  the  Church,  that  the  general  is  in  the  order.  And  as 
the  highest  perfection  of  the  Jesuit  consists  in  yielding  his 
intellect  and  will  blindly  to  the  commands  of  his  general,  so 
he  holds  that  every  good  member  of  the  Church  should 
likewise  believe  blindly  whatever  the  pope  teaches,  and 
unreservedly  obey  what  he  commands. 

The  very  nature  of  the  Jesuit  order  necessarily  requires 
extreme  absolutism  in  the  Church ;  and  every  Jesuit  must 
unavoidably  be  an  ardent  advocate  of  papal  infallibility.  In 
his  eyes,  every  restriction  of  the  pope's  authority  is  an  abomi- 
nation ;  every  opposition  to  his  teaching,  Luciferian  pride. 
According  to  him,  every  Christian  is  bound  to  submit 
his   understanding  and  will  to  the  pope ;  and  the  bishops 


Development  of  the  Doctrine  of  Infallibility,     2*11 

especially  ought  to  be  foremost  in  this  submission  as  patterns 
to  their  flocks.  The  Jesuit  makes  this  sacrifice  twice,  first 
to  the  pope,  then  to  his  general. 

Cardinal  Pallavicini,  one  of  their  order,  reduced  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Jesuits,  on  this  point,  to  a  clear  and  definite 
formula  when  he  taught,  "  that  the  collective  Church  is  a 
body  inanimate  when  alone  and  without  the  pope,  but 
informed  by  the  pope  with  a  soul."  (Storia  del  Con.  di.  Fr. 
I.  103).  "  To  this  soul,  therefore,  i.  e.,  to  the  pope,  belongs 
dominion  over  the  whole  Christian  world ;  he  is  its  monarch 
and  lord,  and  his  authority  is  the  foundation,  the  uniting 
bond,  and  moving  intelligence  of  all  ecclesiastical  govern- 
nient.*'  (Ihid.,  1.  107).  The  Infallibist  doctrine  could  not  be 
expressed  more  definitely  than  by  saying  that  the  whole 
Christian  world  has  but  one  thinking,  moving,  and  volitional 
soul,  and  that  soul  the  pope. 

The  Jesuits,  therefore,  became  the  out-and-out  champions 
of  the  infallibility  theory.  Prior  to  the  existence  of  the 
Jesuit  order,  the  doctrine  of  papal  infallibility  was  hazy, 
vague,  and  nebulous ;  the  Jesuit  theologians  brought  it  into 
clear  and  definite  shape  and  formulated  it;  and  in  their 
treatises  on  dogmatic  theology  it  occupied  a  conspicuous 
place.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  men  who  stood  forth  as 
its  champions  were  eminent  for  their  talents  and  learning ; 
but  it  is  not  the  less  true  that  they  were  crafty  and  unscru- 
pulous. Cardinal  Bellarmine,  the  greatest  Jesuit  divine, 
after  philosophizing  at  length  on  the  nature  of  the  pope's 
authority  and  its  relation  to  the  Church,  has  no  better  argu- 
ments for  papal  infallibility  than  those  drawn  from  the 
pseudo-Isidorian  forgeries  and  kindred  fabrications,  to  which 
we  referred  in  our  last  lecture.  He  made  a  copious  use  of 
thopo  spurious   documents.     It  is  difficult  to  believe  in  the 


278  Roman  Catholicism, 

entire  good  faith  and  sincerity  of  Bellarmine,  because  a  man 
of  his  ability  and  scholarship  could  hardly  have  been  so 
blindly  credulous.  However  that  may  be,  Bellarmine's 
arguments  are  based  on  forgeries,  fabrications,  and  interpola- 
tions of  the  fathers.  A  rigorous  censorship  was  established 
in  Eome  by  which  every  work  that  pointed  out  or  admitted 
that  these  testimonies  were  spurious,  was  condemned  and 
suppressed.  The  inquisition  and  the  index  lihroruTn  pro- 
hibitorum  were  believed  in  Rome  to  be  sufficiently  powerfoi 
to  suppress  criticism  and  Church  history,  or,  at  least,  to  con- 
ceal from  the  mass  of  the  clergy  the  fact  that  these  documents 
were  spurious. 

In  order  to  imbue  the  clergy  with  a  high  veneration  for  the 
papal  see,  and  to  instil  into  their  minds  the  belief  in  infalli- 
bility,  a  number  of  ancient  popes,  with  proper  offices  and 
lessons  were  introduced  into  the  breviary ;  and  all  these 
pious  readings  were  extracted  from  the  papal  fabrications 
and  legends. 

And  as  if  this  were  not  enough.  Cardinal  Baronius,  the 
Jesuit  Church-historian,  who  received  authority  from  the 
pope  to  re-edit  the  Roman  martyrology,  manipulated  this 
work  in  a  truly  Jesuitical  manner,  correcting  those  portions 
that  might  engender  suspicions  dangerous  to  papal  absolut- 
ism and  infallibility,  and  adding  from  spurious  documents 
anything  that  might  tend  to  the  glorification  of  the  papacy. 
In  fact,  this  work,  the  "  Annals  of  the  Church"  compiled  by 
this  talented  and  laborious  Jesuit,  forms  a  vast  repertory  of 
spurious  passages  and  fictions.  Other  famous  Jesuits,  such 
as  Maldonatus,  Suarez,  &c,,  &c.,  adopted  the  same  tactics  of 
defence,  and  made  copious  use  of  the  pseudo-Isidorian  decre- 
tals and  other  fictitious  documents  to  prove  their  thesis  of 
papal   infallibility.      Indeed,  they  seem   to  have  observed 


Development  of  the  Doctrine  of  Infallibility.     279 

with  slavish  fidelity  the  maxim  that  "  the  end  justifies  the 
means." 

It  may  thus  be  easily  explained  how  within  a  very  short 
period  after  the  spread  of  the  Jesuit  order  the  hypothesis  of 
papal  infallibility  had  made  such  rapid  progress.  Their 
advocacy  of  infallibility  was  infectious;  they  were  active 
and  energetic ;  and  were  regarded  as  the  champions  of 
Roman  Catholicism,  raised  by  a  special  providence  to  defend 
and  uphold  the  Church  against  her  enemies.  They  esta- 
blished colleges  in  all  Roman  Catholic  countries,  from  a 
shrewd  and  far-seeing  determination  to  attract  the  youth  to 
their  schools  and  to  train  them  in  their  particular  views  on 
papal  infallibility.  Their  text-books  on  dogmatic  theology 
were  of  a  superior  character,  and  soon  found  their  way  into 
many  clerical  colleges  and  seminaries.  No  wonder,  then, 
that  the  doctrine  of  infallibility  spread  very  rapidly. 

But  there  was  one  obstacle  in  the  way  of  this  infallibility- 
doctrine,  which  it  was  not  easy  to  overcome.  Every  enquirer 
and  reader  of  history  discovered  some  papal  decisions  of  a 
rery  doubtful  and  indefensible  character  j  others  contradicted 
older  doctrines  laid  down  by  popes  or  generally  received  in 
the  Church.  How  were  these  contradictions  to  be  recon- 
ciled? It  became  necessary  to  fix  upon  some  distinctive 
marks  by  which  a  really  infallible  decision  of  the  pope  might 
be  recognized.  The  Jesuits  were  not  at  a  loss.  They  intro- 
duced the  famous  distinction  of  papal  decisions  promulgated 
ex  cathedra.  Such  decisions  alone  were  to  be  considered 
infallible.  We  shall  touch  upon  the  difficulties  with  which 
this  distinction  is  beset  in  another  lecture. 

But  had  the  Jesuits  all  the  field  to  themselves,  without 
opposition,  I  do  not  say  from  Protestants,  but  from  Roman 
Catholics  %  No  ;  thinking  Roman  Catholics  could  not  for- 
get the  corruptions  of  papal  absolutism  and  the  calamities 


^^0  Roman  Catholicism, 

with  which  it  had  afflicted  the  Church.  The  successors  and 
descendants  of  those  who  had  remedied  the  ills  of  the  Church 
in  the  councils  of  Constance  and  Basle  could  not  forget  that 
these  councils  had  clearly  decreed  the  superiority  of  a  general 
council  over  the  pope,  and  that  these  decrees  had  been  ac 
knowledged  and  confirmed  by  the  popes  themselves.  All 
nations,  except  the  Italian  and  Spanish,  which  were  ruled  by 
the  Jesuits  and  intimidated  by  the  Inquisition,  opposed  the 
infallibility  of  the  popes.  These  opponents  of  papal  iner- 
rancy were  called  Gallicans,  because  the  French  divines  took 
the  lead  in  this  opposition  and  formulated  its  distinctive 
principles.  On  the  other  hand,  they  called  the  Infallibilista 
Ultramontanes. 

Ever  since  the  rise  of  the  Jesuit  order,  a  fierce  theological 
war  had  gone  on  between  the  Gallican  and  Ultramontane 
schools.  The  Gallicans  defended  episcopal,  and  the  Ultra- 
montanes papal  infallibility.  Both  were  wrong.  The  error 
of  both  was  generically  the  same  j  the  disagreement  was  only 
specific.  Both  believed  in  the  fiction  of  ecclesiastical  infalli- 
bility ;  they  differed  merely  in  regard  to  the  seat  of  that  in- 
fallibility. According  to  the  Gallicans,  the  bishops  were  in- 
fallible ;  in  the  Ultramontane  viev/,  the  head  of  the  Church 
enjoyed  that  gift ;  he  is  the  active  part  and  communicates 
his  infallibility  to  the  bishops  who  are  th.Q  passive  recipients. 

The  Jesuit  hypothesis  had  many  advantages  over  the 
Gallican  theory.  First,  the  advantage  of  logic.  The  Galli- 
cans taught  the  infallibility  of  the  episcopal  body  and  the 
superiority  of  an  (Ecumenical  council  over  the  pope.  The 
Ultramontanes  would  reply  that  if  the  collective  body  is  in- 
fallible, the  head  which  represents  that  body  and  forms  its 
visible  and  permanent  centre,  must  also  be  infallible.  If  the 
Qallicans  maintained  that  the  unity  of  the  Church  could  b^ 


Development  of  the  Doctrine  of  Infallibility.   281 

preserved  and  controversies  of  faith  determined  only  by  a 
general  council,  tlie  XJltramontanes  would  urge  the  inex- 
pediency and  insufficiency  of  such  a  means,  as  being  only 
periodic  and  intermittent,  and  therefore  they  contended  that 
only  an  easily  accessible,  ever  watchful,  and  infallible  centre 
could  compass  these  ends. 

The  Ultramontane  doctrine  had  the  pope  himself  on  its 
side,  which  served  considerably  to  increase  the  number  of  its 
adherents.  Writers  in  favour  of  papal  infallibility  were 
sure  to  be  rewarded  with  preferments  of  value  and  distinc- 
tion, whilst  Galileans  would  be  left  out  in  the  cold  and 
looked  upon  with  suspicion.  It  was  usual  to  raise  the  most 
distinguished  advocates  of  infallibility  to  the  papal  throne. 
The  popes,  wherever  possible,  filled  vacant  bishoprics  with 
loyal  Infallibilists.  More  persistently  than  ever,  in  encycli- 
cals and  bulls,  they  assumed  the  language  and  bearing  of 
infallible  heads  and  teachers  of  the  Church,  and  the  Roman 
Catholic  world  submissively  bowed  to  their  decisions  and 
decrees.  Every  opportunity  was  taken  to  show  forth  to  the 
world  that  the  whole  Church,  with  only  an  exception  here 
and  there,  was  unanimous  in  the  belief  that  the  pope  was 
endowed  with  the  prerogative  of  infallibility.  On  several 
occasions  letters  of  the  episcopate  glorifying  the  papacy  were 
collected  into  one  volume  and  published  to  the  world  as  so 
many  documents  establishing  the  universal  belief  in  papal 
infallibility.  The  Ultramontanes  proclaimed  their  doc- 
trine as  proxima  fidei,  while  they  stigmatised  the  Gallican 
theory  as  proxima  hceresi. 

Besides  the  all-powerful  aid  of  the  pope,  whose  favour  is  of 
vast  importance  to  every  bishop,  the  Infallibilists  had  the 
great  advantage  of  perfect  unity  of  sentiment  and  aim. 
That  talented  and  energetic  body,  the  Jesuits^  were  the  soul 


282  Roman  Catholicism, 

of  the  whole  movement.  Perfectly  united  in  themselves, 
they  gathered  all  the  scattered  forces  of  the  Church  favour- 
able to  their  doctrine  into  a  united  phalanx.  Crafty  and 
prescient,  by  training  and  experience,  they  knew  well  how 
to  go  about  their  work  and  accomplish  their  purpose.  Their 
religious  literature  teemed  with  treatises  on  the  papal  pre- 
rogative which  were  scattered  far  and  wide.  The  periodical 
press  was  almost  everywhere  under  Ultramontane  control 
and  inspiration.  The  Gallicans,  on  the  contrary,  had  no  cen- 
tral point  uniting  their  forces  scattered  throughout  tho 
different  countries.  Distance,  sectional  and  national  divis- 
ions precluded  them  from  communicating  with  each  other  and 
concerting  a  common  plan  of  opposition.  They  published 
occasionally  incontrovertible  works  against  the  Ultramon- 
tane doctrine,  but  they  were  almost  invariably  placed  on  the 
index  librorwm  prohihitorum,  and  did  not  obtain  the  circula- 
tion they  deserved.  They  had  not  the  immense  resources  of 
the  Infallibilists,  and  therefore  were  not  in  a  position  to 
secure  the  control  of  the  periodical  literature.  The  civil 
governments,  moreover,  which  had  formerly  espoused  their 
cause,  were  influenced  by  the  political  exigencies  of  the  time 
to  court  the  favour  of  Kome  and  to  conclude  Concordats 
which  were  unfavourable  to  the  progress  of  their  opinions. 

Nay,  the  very  calamities  which  had  befallen  the  Roman 
see  since  Napoleon  I.,  instead  of  placing  the  infallibility  doc- 
trine in  the  background,  had  the  effect  of  giving  it  greater 
prominence.  The  humiliation  and  sufferings  of  the  supreme 
pontiff  elicited  the  sympathy  of  the  Roman  Catholic  world 
and  made  it  favourably,  inclined  toward  the  claims  of  the 
papacy.  Where  the  pope,  formerly,  in  his  proud  superiority, 
had  been  opposed,  he  was  now  revered.^ 

With  this  humiliation  of  the  papacy  is  intimately  coa- 


Development  of  the  Doctrine  of  Infallibility.    283 

nected  the  revival  of  the  Jesuit  order.  The  decree  for  its 
suppression  issued  by  Clement  XIV.  was  abrogated  by  Pius 
VII.,  and  the  Jesuits  were  re-instated  in  their  former  posi- 
tion. With  their  public  reappearance  on  the  ecclesiastical 
stage,  the  infallibility  movement  received  a  new  impetus. 

The  irreproachable  lives  and  good  character  of  the  last 
few  popes  also  favoured  the  movement.  The  former  de- 
linquencies of  the  papacy  began  to  be  forgotten,  and  good 
Koman  Catholics,  looking  upon  the  pope  as  their  Most  Holy 
Father^  would  not  needlessly  contradict  him. 

The  belief,  moreover,  gained  ground  that,  if  the  divisions 
between  the  two  schools  of  theology  were  removed,  and  the 
now  almost  universally  admitted  doctrine  of  papal  infallibility 
raised  to  the  dignity  of  a  dogma  of  faith  which  all  members 
of  the  Church  must  believe  under  pain  of  excommunication 
and  damnation,  the  afflictions  of  the  pope  would  come  to  an 
end.  For  all  true  Roman  Catholics  would  hesitate  before 
wounding  the  heart  of* the  infallible  head  of  the  Church,  on 
whose  teaching  their  faith  and  salvation  depended. 

And  if  the  pope  were  declared  infallible  by  a  general 
council,  if  he  were  sincerely  believed  to  be  the  source  of  all 
orthodox  belief,  he  must  be  independent  of  all  political 
pressure,  free  from  compulsion,  untrammeled  in  the  exercise 
of  his  high  office  ;  in  a  word,  he  must  be  a  temporal  sovereign. 
For,  how  could  the  Roman  Catholic  world,  composed  as  it  is 
of  many  nations,  of  opposing  interests  and  living  under 
different  forms  of  government,  repose  confidence  in  his  teach- 
ing and  spiritual  government,  if  they  suspected  that  he  had 
been  influenced  by  the  government  on  which  his  peace  and 
welfare  as  a  citizen  depended  %  No  ;  if  the  pope  is  infallible 
— so  they  reasoned — he  cannot  be  the  citizen  of  any  country  \ 
his  very  office  necessarily  requires  that  he  be  an  independent 


284  Roman  Catholicism, 

sovereign.  The  states  of  the  Church  must  be  restored  to 
him ;  and  it  is  the  interest,  nay  the  imperative  duty  of  all 
Roman  Catholic  governments  to  support  him  in  the  peaceful 
possession  of  his  temporal  sovereignty.  Thus  the  dogma  of 
papal  infallibility  was  held  by  the  Ultramontanes  to  be 
inseparably  connected  with  the  temporal  dominion  of  the 
pope.  And  this,  we  think,  was  one  of  the  principal  reasons 
why  the  Vatican  council  was  convoked  in  1870,  and  the 
hypothesis  of  infallibility  raised  to  the  dignity  of  a  dogma 
binding  on  the  conscience  of  all  the  members  of  the  Church. 

The  Ultramontane  party  was  victorious,  and  the  Gallican 
school  was  forever  snuffed  out  of  existence.  Pius  IX.  put  the 
apex  upon  the  pyramid  of  the  Roman  hierarchy  by  proclaiming 
his  own  infallibility  in  matters  of  faith  and  morals.  He 
reached  the  goal  of  all  the  ambitious  aspirations  of  his  prede- 
cessors. Roman  Catholicism  was  changed  into  popery  pure 
and  simple. 

What  became  of  the  minority  bishops,  who  were  all  men 
of  superior  attainments  and  had  opposed  the  decree  most 
strenuously  during  the  council  %  Did  they  secede  from  the 
Church  of  Rome  %  Not  a  single  one  of  them.  They  all 
submitted  to  the  Vatican  decrees.  Yet,  the  facts  and 
arguments  which  they  submitted  so  clearly  and  forcibly,  both 
before  and  during  the  council,  against  the  personal  infallibility 
of  the  pope  more  convincing  and  true.  They  could  not  be 
withdrawn  or  refuted.  How  is  it,  then,  that  these  eminent 
men  almost  immediately  changed  sides  and  did  violence  to 
their  conscientious  convictions — the  fruit,  with  many  of  them, 
of  a  thorough  and  life-long  study  %  It  was  because  they  be- 
lieved in  episcopal  infallibility,  that  is  the  infallibility  of  an 
oecumenical  council,  and  looking  upon  the  Vatican  council  as 
aja  cecumenical  one,  they  accepted,  according  to  their  own 


Development  of  the  Doctrine  of  Infallibility.  285 

theory,  its  decrees.  They  were  at  liberty  to  hold  and  defend 
their  theory  before  and  during  the  council,  but  not  after  its 
dogmatic  utterance.  Their  maxim  was,  concilium  locutum 
est,  causa  finita  est.  And  in  conformity  with  this  maxim 
they  submitted. 


LECTUEE    VI. 

THE  VATICAN  COUNCIL.— THE  INFALLIBILITY  DECREE 
IN  TbE  LIGHT  OF  REASON  AND  TRADITION 

THE  Vatican  council  alone  is  in  itself  a  complete  refuta- 
tion, in  a  nutshell,  of  the  whole  system  of  Roman 
Catholicism,  both  Gallican  and  Ultramontane.  It  gives,  un- 
doubtedly, the  deathblow  to  Church-infallibility,  the  car- 
dinal doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome ;  for  it  sustains  a  fiction 
and  evidently  puts  itself  at  variance  with  the  older  oecumeni- 
cal councils  which,  by  no  means,  professed  to  depend  on  the 
bishop  of  Rome  for  their  validity,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
assumed  his  liability  to  error,  and  actually  condemned  a 
pope  as  a  heretic.  It  completely  annuls  the  decrees  of  the 
councils  of  Constance  and  Basle  which  were  summoned  to 
put  an  end  to  the  long  schism  and  to  remedy  the  evils  of  the 
Church.  Certainly  but  for  them  the  papacy  itself  would 
have  committed  suicide,  perishing  by  its  own  corruption. 
If  oecumenical  councils  thus  contradict  each  other,  they  can- 
not be  looked  upon  as  endowed  with  infallibility.  Indeed, 
we  find  nowhere  that  our  Lord  has  promised  infallibility  to 
oecumenical  councils  ;  His  truth  does  not  depend  on  numbers 
and  majorities  ;  both  the  Bible  and  history  teach  us  the  con- 
trary. 

But  if  the  Vatican  council  stultifies  the  Gallican  theory,  it 
no  less  shows  the  falsehood  of  Ultramontanism.  The  very 
fact  01  this  infallibility-decree  having  been  made  by  a  coun- 


Infallibility  in  Light  of  Reason  and  Tradition.  287 

cil  demolishes  the  Ultramontane  hypothesis.  For  the  decree 
is  not  aimed  against  heretics,  but  is  merely  intended  to 
settle  theological  (not  dogmatic)  differences  between  the  two 
leading  schools,  which  not  only  existed  in  the  Church,  but 
were  tolerated ;  and  not  only  tolerated,  but  respected  and 
honoured — each  school  counting  alternately  amongst  its  ad- 
herents the  very  occupants  of  the  papal  chair.  Their  differ- 
ences did  not  destroy  any  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Church 
of  Rome ;  they  were  merely  open  questions  on  which  the 
theologians  could  rove  at  full  liberty.  Now,  how  can  a 
council  declare  that  either  the  one  or  the  other  of  such  posi- 
tions was  alioays,  everywhere,  and  hy  all  held  and  believed  as 
an  article  of  faith,  and  that  consequently  the  other  thesis 
was  always,  everywhere,  and  by  all  believed  to  be  heretical  ? 
In  that  case  would  not  the  Church  have  been  guilty  of 
tolerating  heresy,  in  allowing  the  opposite  doctrine  to  be 
openly  and  freely  taught  from  her  pulpits,  and  in  her  schools 
and  seminaries  ?  Would  she  not  have  been  faithless  to  her 
duty  of  witness-bearer  if  she  had  allowed  a  cardinal  doctrine 
like  that  of  the  infallibility  of  her  head  to  be  treated  as  an 
open  question  for  so  many  centuries,  and  to  remain  so  long  an 
apple  of  discord  among  her  talented  and  devoted  sons  ? 

But  I  hear  Roman  Catholics  say  that  an  opportune  time 
had  not  hitherto  arrived  for  asserting  it ;  and  that  the  mind 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  world  was  not  ripe  for  the  reception 
of  such  a  definition. 

Opportune  time  !  Not  ripe  to  believe  a  truth  on  which 
the  very  nature  of  the  Church  depends,  on  which  all  her 
faith,  morals,  and  discipline  hinge  !  Not  ripe  !  That  means, 
that  the  Ultramontanes,  with  ambitious  or  deluded  hopes  at 
their  head,  had  not  sufficiently  planned,  plotted,  and  schemed 
to  spread  cheir  doctrine,  to  imbue  men's  minds  with  it,  and 


288  Roman  Catholicism, 

to  obtain  a  sufficient  majority  in  a  general  council  to  raise  it 
to  the  dignity  of  a  dogma.  Is  it  not,  then,  a  sufficient  con- 
demnation of  Ultramontanism  that  this  important  dogma 
should  have  been  decreed  so  late  as  the  latter  part  of  the 
nineteenth  century  ? 

Moreover,  if  the  pope,  as  they  suppose,  was  believed  from 
the  beginning  to  be  personally  infallible,  what  need  was 
there  of  the  Vatican  council  ?  The  assertion  of  the  pope 
against  gainsayers  within  the  Church  ought  to  have  been 
sufficient.  The  calling  together  of  a  council  for  this  purpose 
shows  the  weakness  of  the  cause ;  it  manifests  the  universal 
belief  that  hitherto  all  dogmatic  decrees  had  emanated  from 
an  oecumenical  council,  and  that  the  papal  assertion  alone 
would  not  be  binding  or  irreformable  in  its  nature.  The 
necessity  of  such  a  council  for  such  a  purpose,  in  whatever 
light  you  may  view  it,  destroys  the  pope's  claim  to  infalli- 
bility. The  two  are  incompatible.  Indeed,  if  the  pope  had 
been  believed,  always,  everywhere,  and  by  all,  to  be  infallible, 
what  need  would  there  ever  have  been  of  councils,  at  all  1  If 
modern  Ultramontanism  had  always  been  the  rule  of  the 
Church,  we  should  never  have  heard  of  oecumenical  councils 
and  their  paramount  authority.  The  very  fact  that  these 
councils  have  always  enjoyed  so  much  weight  and  authority 
in  the  Church  of  Rome  condemns  the  Jesuit  doctrine  ah 
limine. 

I  said  that  the  Vatican  council  sanctioned  a  fiction  when 
it  decreed  the  infallibility  of  the  pope.  Before  proving  this 
thesis  let  us  first  see  what  they  mean  by  the  new  dogma ;  espe- 
cially as  they  complain  that  Protestants  misunderstand  it. 

They  do  not  admit  papal  infallibility  pure  and  simple,  but 
9.ttach  to  it  several  restrictions.  In  the  first  place,  they  do  not 
deny  that  popes  are  sinful  mortals;  nay,  they  even  admit 


Infallibility  in  Light  of  Reason  and  Tradition.    289 

that  they  have  sometimes  led  notoriously  bad  lives  \  but  they 
teach,  that  although  sin  darkens  the  understanding  and  pro- 
duces error,  yet,  in  the  case  of  the  popes,  God,  by  a  constant 
miracle,  intervenes  between  cause  and  effect,  severing  the 
latter  from  the  former,  and  thus  enabling  them  to  teach  the 
truth  to  the  whole  world,  however  base  and  evil  their  lives 
may  be.  Thus  the  popes  are  infallible,  although  they  are  not 
impeccable. 

Again,  they  do  not  believe  the  pope  infallible  in  \n&  private 
capacity.  In  the  intercourse  with  the  persons  surrounding 
him,  he  may  teach  any  kind  of  error,  and  yet  be  the  infalli- 
ble pope.  It  is  only  in  his  public  teaching  that  he  is  believed 
to  be  endowed  with  infallibility.  And  this  again  they 
restrict  within  still  narrower  limits.  Not  every  public 
address  or  letter  of  his  is  considered  infallible,  but  only  those 
public  utterances,  concerning  faith  and  morals,  which  he 
issues  ex  cathedra  are  believed  to  be  free  from  error. 

And  he  is  said  to  teach  ex  cathedra  when  he  speaks  as  the 
universal  teacher  of  the  whole  world,  and  addresses  the 
whole  Church,  binding  the  consciences  of  all  its  members  to 
accept  his  decrees  with  an  absolute  faith,  under  pain  of 
excommunication  and  eternal  damnation.  Such  ex-cathedrd 
decrees  are  believed  to  possess  the  same  absolute  certainty 
as  the  Bible  or  the  decrees  of  an  oecumenical  council. 
They  are  considered  to  be  independent  of  the  consent  of  the 
Church,  nor  do  they  require  any  further  proof  for  their 
general  acceptance.  They  are  not  only  final  but  also  irrevo- 
cable ;  they  can  never  be  repealed  or  reformed ;  like  the 
words  of  God,  "  they  shall  never  pass  away."  They  have 
not  only  regard  to  the  present  and  future,  but  they  embrace 
also  the  ex-cathedrd  decisions  of  all  the  former  popes  from 
Peter  to  Pius  IX. 

19 


290  Roman   Catholicism, 

As  this  infallibility-dogma  is  of  cardinal  importance,  tlie 
arguments  by  which  it  is  established  should  be  clear  and 
conclusive.  But  they  are  quite  the  reverse.  They  are 
mostly  of  an  inferential  character — drawn  from  the  pre- 
tended primacy  of  St.  Peter  and  the  nature,  end,  and  object 
of  the  Church.  They  say,  for  instance,  that  the  Vicar  of 
Christ  must  share  in  Christ's  infallibility,  otherwise  he  could 
not  be  the  universal  teacher  of  the  Church,  in  whom  all  the 
members  may  repose  implicit  confidence.  They  argue  from 
the  nature  and  aim  of  the  Church,  i.  e.,  leading  men  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  saving  truth,  that  she  must  have  an  ever- 
available  organ  by  which  this  knowledge  may  be  acquired. 
And  as  general  councils  are  only  periodical  and  intermittent, 
the  head  of  the  Church  must  needs  be  the  infallible  teacher. 

Such  and  similar  arguments  have  great  effect  with  those 
whose  minds  are  antecedently  in  favour  of  infallibility; 
but  of  themselves  they  do  not  possess  a  feather's  weight. 
These  philosophical  arguments  are  not  conclusive — non 
sequitur  illatio.  For  the  same  end  may  be  attained  by  other 
means  than  papal  infallibility.  We  have  seen  in  the  first 
part  of  this  course  of  lectures  that  the  Word  of  God  is  the 
infallible  element  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  will  always  guide  believers  into  the  truth.  That  the 
truth  will  always  be  accessible  to  the  sincere  enquirer 
wherever  the  Word  of  God  is  spread.  Ecclesiasticism, 
however  much  you  may  endow  it  with  infallibility,  cannot 
save  men.  The  Word  of  God,  whatever  Roman  Catholics 
and  infidels  may  assert  to  the  contrary,  is  after  all  the  only 
source  of  saving  knowledge.  There  God  has  revealed 
Himself  plainly  enough  for  all  purposes  of  salvation.  Yet, 
this  revelation  does  not  supersede  the  necessity  of  faith  and 
enquiry,     God  gives  us  the  truth  in  such  a  way  as  to  con- 


InfaUibility  in  Light  of  Reason  and  Tradition.    291 

form  with  our  mental  constitution.  He  is  the  Author 
both  of  the  Bible  and  of  the  human  mind.  It  is  not  His 
will  that  we  should  hlindly  submit  to  the  definitions  and 
decrees  of  any  mortal  man.  He  has  given  us  a  rational 
mind  to  think  and  to  judge,  and  a  free  will  to  accept  or  to 
refuse.  The  Jesuit  doctrine  of  blind  faith  and  obedience 
which,  in  our  days,  has  been  the  real  foundation  of  the 
Vatican  decree  is  at  variance  with  our  spiritual  nature  and 
with  the  will  and  word  of  God.  Christian  faith  is  an  intelli- 
gent assent.  God  wishes  us  "to  prove  all  things  and  to  hold 
fast  that  which  is  good  "  (i  Thess.  v.,  21),  "  to  try  the  spirits 
whether  they  are  God "  (i  John  iv.,  1),  and  to  refuse 
obedience  even  to  an  angel  from  heaven  if  he  preach  a  differ- 
ent gospel  (Gal.  i.,  8).  The  Bersean  Jews  are  recommended 
for  searching  the  Scriptures  daily  whether  those  things  were 
so  (Acts  xvii.,  11).  But  the  Vatican  infallibility-defini- 
tion destroys  the  industrious  application  and  intelligent 
assent  of  our  intellect  and  will  in  matters  of  faith.  It 
destroys  our  responsibility. 

Moreover,  these  philosophizing  arguments  of  the  infalli- 
bilists  can  have  no  weight  with  the  serious  and  thoughtful 
Koman  Catholic.  He  requires  documents  from  tradition  or 
history  and  from  Scripture — the  unwritten  and  written 
Word  of  God.  For  it  has  always  been  held  by  the  Church 
that  neither  the  pope  nor  the  bishops  can  create  dogmas,  but 
that  they  are  only  the  trustees  and  witnesses  of  the  deposit  of 
faith.  According  to  their  rule  of  faith,  they  must  prove 
that  this  infallibility  dogma  has  been  believed  semper,  ubique^ 
el  ah  omnibus — always,  everywhere,  and  by  all. 

Now,  it  can  be  conclusively  proved  that  it  lacks  every 
one  of  these  three  marks  of  catholicity.  Eminent  Roman 
Catholic  divines,  of  the  Galilean  school,  before  the  Vatican 


292  Roman  Catholicism. 

council,  incontrovertibly  refuted  the  modern  papal  claim,  to 
our  complete  satisfaction. 

We  open  tlie  pages  of  ancient  Church  history  and  read 
them  attentively,  but  nowhere  do  we  find  this  doctrine ; 
nay,  the  more  attentively  and  profoundly  we  prosecute  our 
historical  studies,  the  less  we  shall  see  of  papal  infallibility. 
We  do  not  find  it  where  undoubtedly  it  should  be  found.  If 
this  cardinal  doctrine  had  always  been  believed,  and  occupied 
the  prominent  place  it  holds  at  present,  it  should  be  found  in 
the  ancient  creeds.  They  were  many,  both  general  and  local, 
and  held  an  important  place  in  the  economy  of  the  Church  ; 
but  we  seek  in  vain  therein  for  the  doctrine  of  papal  infalli- 
bility. All  the  catechumens  should  have  been  carefully  in- 
structed in  regard  to  this  corner-stone  of  the  Christian  faith, 
and  firmly  grounded  and  built  up  in  it ;  but  we  do  not  find 
the  slightest  mention  of  it  in  the  ancient  catechetical  instruc- 
tions written  for  their  use. 

If  the  pope  had  been  believed  to  be  infallible,  what  need, 
one  may  ask,  would  there  have  been  of  cecumenical  councils 
for  the  settlement  of  controversies  of  faith  %  Yet,  in  the 
undivided  Church  we  have  eight  of  them  j  and  what  coun- 
cils !  Instead  of  the  pope  convoking  them,  they  were  con- 
voked by  the  Greek  emperors  j  instead  of  presiding  therein, 
the  popes  were  not  even  present ;  and  as  to  the  confirmation 
of  the  pope  being  necessary  for  the  validity  of  their  acts,  no 
one  dreamt  of  such  a  thing.  It  would  have  been  an  unheard 
of  thing  that  the  Roman  bi.^hop  should,  within  the  council, 
issue  the  decrees  in  his  own  name,  sacro  approhante  concilio. 
No ;  the  councils  acted  altogether  in  their  own  name,  and 
issued  their  decrees  in  the  fulness  of  their  own  authority. 
They,  even  judged  the  letters  of  the  popes  and  approved  or 
condemned  them  according  to  their  merits  or  demerits.  They 


Infallibility  in  Light  of  Reason  and  Tradition.   2U3 

not  only  assumed  the  fallibility  of  tlie  bishop  of  Rome,  but 
the  sixth  oecumenical  council  (680)  anathematized  Honorius, 
pope  of  Rome,  for  officially  teaching  and  abetting  the  Mono- 
th  elite  heresy,  which  anathema  was  signed  not  only  by  all 
the  bishops,  but  even  by  the  three  legates  of  the  pope,  and 
was  repeated  in  the  seventh  and  eighth  councils. 

These  councils  were  held  in  the  East,  and  therefore  pre- 
sent to  us  immediately  and  directly  the  teaching  of  the 
Greek  Church.  In  no  authentic  document  of  that  Church 
do  we  find  the  faintest  trace  of  the  doctrine  of  papal  infalli- 
bility. The  total  absence  of  such  documents  in  the  most 
important  branch  of  the  Christian  Church,  during  the  first 
eight  centuries,  speaks  volumes  against  modern  papal  pre- 
tensions. 

Nor  are  the  infallibilists  more  successful  in  their  patristic 
researches,  for  the  fathers  knew  nothing  of  this  doctrine. 
At  the  very  outset  we  must  exclude  all  the  Greek  fathers, 
who  in  no  sense  whatever  can  be  said  to  favour  it.  The 
Latin  fathers,  who  are  few  and  of  later  date,  acknowledge 
in  the  bishop  of  Rome  a  patriarchal  authority  over  the 
Western  Churches,  but  no  infallibility  in  teaching. 

The  African  Church,  the  daughter  of  the  missionary  zeal 
of  Rome,  should  surely  have  beheld  in  its  bishop  the  infalli- 
ble head  of  the  Church.  It  was  a  flourishing  Church  and 
very  zealous  in  the  observance  of  discipline  and  for  fidelity 
to  right  government.  Its  bishops  were  remarkable  for  their 
learning.  The  names  of  St.  Cyprian  and  St.  Augustine  will 
for  ever  live  in  the  memory  of  the  Christian  Church.  Yet, 
this  Church,  like  all  the  others,  had  a  method  of  settling 
controversies  of  faith,  altogether  different  from  that  of  the 
modern  papacy.  They  appealed  to  the  catholic  consent  as 
ascertained  by  local  and  general  councils. 


294  Roman  Catholicisn„, 

True ;  St.  Cyprian,  in  his  zeal  for  a  visible  and  tangible 
unity,  endeavoured  in  much  that  he  wrote,  to  give  the 
Roman  see  a  conspicuous  place  among  the  Churches ;  but  he 
had  no  glimpse  whatever  of  papal  infallibility.  The  system 
of  unity  which  he  advocates  is  that  of  episcopal  solidarity  and 
equality ;  and  he  stoutly  opposed  Pope  Stephen's  view  of  the 
validity  of  heretical  baptism. 

The  XJltramontanes  imagine  that  they  find  in  the  writings 
of  the  great  St.  Augustine  proofs  of  the  infallibility  of  the 
pope.  They  are  greatly  mistaken.  He  has  written  more 
about  the  government  of  the  Church  than  all  the  other 
fathers  put  together,  yet  there  is  not  a  single  chapter  in  his 
voluminous  works  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  supremacy, 
much  less  of  the  infallibility  of  the  pope ;  nay,  we  go  further, 
and  assert  there  is  not  even  a  single  sentence  that  can  be 
construed  in  favour  of  this  doctrine.  But  what  does  his 
famous  dictum  mean :  Roma  locuta  est,  causa  jinita  est  1 
Does  it  not  mean  that  the  pope  is  infallible  'i 

By  no  means.  In  the  second  volume  of  the  works  of  St.  Au- 
gustine, Nos.  175  and  176,  we  find  two  letters  of  the  councils 
of  Carthage  and  Mileve  addressed  to  Innocent  I.,  bishop 
of  Home,  in  which  he  is  requested  by  the  fathers  of  those 
councils  to  condemn  the  Pelagians.  There  is  nothing  in  these 
letters  which  tends  to  show  that  they  believed  in  the  bishop 
of  Rome  as  the  infallible  head  of  the  Church.  Indeed  they 
would  not  have  written  to  him  at  all  if  a  particular  circum- 
stance had  not  impelled  them  to  it.  This  circumstance  we 
learn  from  the  next  letter  No.  177,  which  Augustine  and  four 
other  bishops,  together  with  the  fathers  of  the  council,  wrote 
to  Pope  Innocent.  They  had  heard  that,  in  the  city  of 
Rome,  where  Pelagius  had  lived  for  a  considerable  time, 
there  were  some  who  favoured  his  cause.     They  were  afraic 


Infallibility  in  Light  of  Reason  and  Tradition.    295 

that  Innocent,  led  astray  by  the  friends  of  Pelagius  or  mis- 
understanding his  doctrine,  would  receive  him  into  commun- 
ion with  his  Church.  After  having  received  a  favourable 
answer  from  Innocent,  Augustine  mentioned  it  incidentally 
in  a  sermon,  No.  131,  saying:  "Already  the  transactions 
of  two  councils  concerning  this  matter  have  been  sent  to  the 
Apostolic  see  and  an  answer  has  been  received.  The  con- 
troversy is  ended ;  would  that  the  error,  too,  were  at  an  end  " 
— causajinita  est,  utinam  aliquando  error  finiatur.  Thus  the 
words  Ro7)ia  locuta  est,  causajinita  est,  belong  to  those  strik- 
ing general  maxims  or  clinchers  which  were  never  uttered 
by  those  into  whose  mouths  they  are  put.  There  is  all  the 
difference  in  the  world,  whether  St.  Augustine  states,  in 
sweeping  terms,  that  by  a  judgment  from  Rome  every  dog- 
matic controversy  is  ended,  or  merely  mentions  incidentally 
in  a  sermon  an  occasional  correspondence  between  the  Afri- 
can bishops  and  Rome,  and  then  declares  that  in  this  par- 
ticular case  the  controversy  may  be  considered  as  brought  to 
an  end.  After  the  African  bishops  had  condemned  Pelagius 
in  two  councils,  and  after  the  transmarine  Churches  repre- 
sented by  the  patriarch  of  Rome  had  given  their  assent  to 
this  judgment  of  the  Africans,  the  Pelagian  cause  might  be 
considered  as  ended,  at  least  in  the  West.  The  error  was  so 
obvious  that  no  further  proceedings  against  it  were  deemed 
necessary.  Yet,  St.  Augustine  was  mistaken.  It  was  not 
until  after  its  condemnation  by  the  general  council  of 
Ephesus  that  the  Pelagian  controversy  was  finally  settled. 

If  all  the  works  of  St.  Augustine,  with  the  exception  of 
the  above-mentioned  three  letters  and  the  sermon  No  131, 
had  been  lost,  we  might  be  induced  to  allow  that  he  admits 
in  the  Roman  pontifi"  a  primacy  in  teaching.  But  such  a 
primacy  is   far   different   from   infallibility;  although   the 


296  Roman  Catholicism. 

popes  and  their  adherents  have  endeavoured  to  deduce  tli6 
latter  prerogative  from  the  former.  A  head-teacher  in  re- 
ligious matters  may  be  useful  for  the  speedy  condemnation  of 
errors,  especially  if  he  be  in  a  central  position  where  he  is 
enabled  to  know  the  catholic  consensus  of  the  Church  and 
where  a  plenary  council  can  be  called  to  correct  any  mistake 
into  which  he  may  fall.  But  St.  Augustine  does  not  admit 
such  a  primacy  in  teaching,  much  less  the  gift  of  infallibility. 
The  fact  is,  passages  excluding  the  primacy  of  the  pope 
occur  in  his  works  in  large  masses,  while  texts  which  may 
seem  to  favour  it  are  few  and  occur  only  incidentally. 

Most  assuredly  the  fathers  knew  of  no  such  claimant  to  in- 
fallibility ;  otherwise  there  would  have  been  a  speedy  end  to 
their  disputes  with  heretics ;  they  would  have  applied 
to  this  oracle  at  Kome  for  an  authoritative  decree. 
It  would  have  been  the  m^ot  d^ordre ;  nothing  would  have 
been  easier  than  to  silence  heretics  by  informing  them  that 
the  pope  taught  differently.  If  papal  infallibility  had  been 
the  articulus  stantis  vel  cadentis  ecclesice  we  should  read 
much  of  it  in  the  fathers.  If  there  had  always  been  a 
divine  oracle  in  the  Vatican,  the  writings  of  the  fathers  would 
wear  a  different  colour,  and  the  history  of  the  Church  would 
have  taken  an  altogether  different  direction. 


LECTUEE    VII. 

THE   VATICAN  DECREE  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  HISTORY. 

ANCIENT  Churcli  history  is  not  only  silent  about  the 
infallibility  of  the  pope,  but  it  affords,  on  the  contrary, 
abundant  proofs  that  the  pretended  oracle  on  the  seven  hills 
was  more  than  once  a  lying  oracle.  I  have  space  merely  to 
enumerate  some  of  the  papal  errors  and  contradictions. 

The  decrees,  letters,  and  writings  of  the  popes  contradict 
repeatedly  the  Roman  Catholic  teaching  on  the  nature  and 
administration  of  the  sacraments.  Thus  Innocent  I.,  and  his 
successors,  at  least  until  Pope  Gelasius  I.,  taught  that  the 
sacrament  of  communion  was  necessary  for  the  salvation  of 
infants  (Gelas.  I.  ep.  ix).  This  doctrine  was  anathematized 
by  the  council  of  Trent.  Nicholas  I.,  in  his  letter  to  the 
Bulgarians,  taught  that  baptism  in  the  name  of  Christ  alone 
was  quite  sufficient.  Celestine  III.  loosened  the  marriage  tie 
by  declaring  it  dissolved  if  either  party  became  heretical. 
Stephen  II.  allowed  marriage  with  a  slave  girl  to  be  dissolved. 
Nicholas  II.  taught  the  Capernaite  doctrine  in  regard  to  the 
sacrament  of  the  Eucharist.  Eugenius  IV.  in  his  letter  to 
the  Armenians,  taught  several  erroneous  doctrines  touching 
the  validity  of  the  sacraments. 

It  is  a  dogma  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  that  ordina- 
tion is  a  sacrament  impressing  on  the  soul  an  indelible  char- 
acter, which  can  neither  be  removed  nor  renewed.       Hence 


298  Roman  Catholicism, 

the  maxim  :  "  Once  a  priest,  forever  a  priest."  Re-ordina- 
tion, therefore,  has  always  been  opposed  in  the  Church  as  an 
heretical  practice  pregnant  with  calamitous  consequences. 
But  the  popes,  from  the  eighth  centuiy  to  the  end  of  the 
middle  ages,  showed  by  theii'  decrees  and  acts  that  they  be- 
lieved that  the  unworthiness,  heresy,  or  simony  of  the  ordain- 
ing bishop  rendered  the  ordination  null  and  void.  The  con- 
iStant  ex-ordinations,  re-ordinations  or  super-ordinations,  as 
they  were  called,  threw  the»Church  into  a  state  of  great  con- 
fusion. If  the  popes  had  been  infallible,  they  would  not  have 
acted  as  they  did. 

The  student  of  history  is  acquainted  with  the  pernicious 
errors  into  which  the  popes  fell  in  regard  to  the  relation 
between  the  papal  authority  and  the  secular  power.  Ever 
since  the  Hildebrandine  era  they  have  endeavoured  to  make 
the  whole  world  a  priest-kingdom.  They  taught  that  the 
pope  has  supreme  authority  not  only  in  spiritual  but  also  in 
temporal  things  ;  that  two  swords  are  given  him  by  Christ, 
the  spiritual  and  the  secular,  the  former  to  be  wielded  by  the 
pope  himself,  the  latter  to  be  borne  by  the  secular  princes  on 
behalf  of  the  Church  and  at  the  will  and  pleasure  of  the 
pope  ;  that  the  pope  has  the  power  of  deposing  heretical  and 
disobedient  kings  and  absolving  their  subjects  from  the  oath 
of  allegiance;  that  all  secular  power  is  derived  from  the 
pope,  who  may  erect  kingdoms  and  appoint  kings.  Roman 
Catholics  cannot  say  that  the  popes  exercised  such  enormous 
power  by  international  law  \  for  they  claimed  it  as  pertain- 
ing to  them  hy  divine  right.  And  herein  lies  the  heresy  of 
which  they  are  guilty.  Pope  Gregory  VII.,  who  may  be 
considered  the  great  apostle  of  this  pestilential  doctrine, 
teaches  it  constantly  in  his  epistles  and  in  the  Roman  coun- 
cils claim  it  as  an  inherent  right  of  the  pontifical  power, 


the  Vatican  Decree  in  the  Light  of  History.    299 

and  as  being  contained  in  the  commission  which  Peter 
received  from  Christ  of  binding  and  loosing.  The  contem- 
porary opponents  of  this  doctrine  called  it  the  novol  heresy 
of  Ilildehrand. 

His  successors,  explaining  the  import  of  the  divine  com- 
mission, maintained  that  the  right  to  direct,  command,  and 
judge  in  all  temporal  things  had  been  conferred  on  them  by 
the  Son  of  God  Himself  ratione  peccati,  that  is,  in  order  to 
prevent  and  repress  the  commission  of  sin  ;  that  Christ  had 
given  to  Peter  two  swords,  and  that  the  secular  sword  or 
power  ought  to  be  subject  to  the  spiritual  one.  They 
claimed  this  divine  right,  not  as  private  persons,  but  in  their 
public  official  capacity  and  by  virtue  of  their  apostolical 
authority,  under  pain  of  excommunication  and  eternal 
damnation.  Thus  Innocent  III.  affirmed,  "the  pontifical 
authority  so  much  to  exceed  the  royal  power,  as  the  sun 
doth  the  moon,"  and  applies  to  the  former  the  words  of  the 
Prophet  (Jerem.  i.  10)  :  "  See,  I  have  set  thee  over  the 
nations  and  over  the  kingdoms,  to  root  out,  and  pnll  down,  to 
destroy  and  to  throw  down,  &c."  (Iniiocent  III.,  in  Decret. 
Gregor.  Tit.  33,  cap.  6).  And  history  shows  with  what  a 
high  hand  he  exercised  this  power  which  he  taught  that  he 
had  received  fro7n  on  high,  and  not  by  the  law  and  consent 
of  nations. 

Pope  Innocent  IV.  taught  the  same  doctrine,  when  in  the 
council  of  Lyons  he  excommunicated  the  emperor  Frederick 
II.,  in  the  words:  "We  having  about  the  foregoing  and 
many  other  his  wicked  deeds  had  before  a  careful  delibera- 
tion with  our  brethren  and  the  holy  council,  seeing  that  we, 
although  unworthy,  do  hold  the  place  of  Jesus  Christ  on 
earth,  and  that  it  was  said  unto  us  in  the  person  of  St. 
Peter  the  Apostle,  '  Whatsoever  thou  shale  bind  on  earth' — 


306  jR.oman  Catholicisfii, 

do  show,  denounce,  and  accordingly  by  sentence  deprive  the 
said  prince ;  absolving  all  who  are  held  bound  by  oath  of 
allegiance  from  such  oath  forever ;  by  Apostolical  authority 
firmly  prohibiting,  that  no  man  henceforth  do  obey  or  regard 
him  as  emperor  or  king ;  and  decreeing,  that  whosoever 
shall  hereafter  yield  advice,  or  aid,  or  do  honour  to  him  as 
emperor  or  king,  shall  immediately  be  under  the  ban  of 
excommunication/'  (P.  Inn.  lY.,  in  Con.  Lugd.)  He, 
therefore,  believed  that  he  held  the  deposing  power  and  the 
supreme  control  over  temporal  things,  hy  divine  right. 

Boniface  VIII.  stretched  this  doctrine  to  the  utmost  limits 
when,  in  his  famous  bull  Unam  Sanctam  addressed  to  the 
Universal  Church,  he  said :  "  We  declare,  say,  define,  pro- 
nounce it  to  he  of  necessity  to  salvation,  for  every  human 
creature  to  be  subject  to  the  Roman  pontiff."  This  sub- 
jection, according  to  his  view,  extends  to  all  matters  j  for 
he  there  speaks  of  a  double  sword,  and  asserts  to  himself 
jurisdiction  over  all  temporal  authorities.  For  "One  sword," 
saith  he,  "  must  be  under  another,  and  the  temporal  authori- 
ty must  be  subject  t^  the  spiritual  power ;  whence,  if  thft 
earthly  power  doth  go  astray,  it  must  be  judged  by  the 
spiritual  power."  And  these  aphorisms  he  attempts  to  prove 
by  texts  from  Scripture  wonderfully  expounded  for  that 
purpose. 

Here  we  have,  undoubtedly,  even  in  the  system  of  the 
minimizers,  an  ex-cathedrd  bull.  Its  object,  therefore,  must 
be  a  dogmatic  definition,  to  be  believed  by  the  Church  for  all 
time  to  come.  They  cannot  deny  that  it  is  intended  to  mark 
out  the  relation  between  the  papal  authority  and  the  civil 
power,  and  involves  the  complete  subjection  of  the  latter  to 
the  former,  so  that  the  pope  jure  divino  has  authority  over 
all  kings  and  princes,  and  may  depose  them  and  absolve 


The  Vatican  Decree  in  the  Light  of  History.    301 

subjects  from  their  allegiance.     Therefore  this  doctrine  is  to 
be  believed  as  a  truth  revealed  from  God. 

It  is  this  dogma,  principally,  which  excites  the  enmity 
and  arouses  the  ire  of  modern  society  against  the  papacy. 
Hence  E-oman  Catholic  theologians,  in  order  to  escape,  by 
any  means,  the  difficulties  arising  out  of  the  relation  between 
modern  public  opinion  and  this  doctrine,  endeavour  to  explain 
away  the  dogmatic  import  of  this  famous  bull  of  Boniface 
VIII.  But  they  evidently  do  violence  to  the  manifest  con- 
nection of  facts  which  induced  the  pope  to  issue  it,  and  to  the 
unmistakable  import  of  its  words.  That  it  is  a  dogmatic 
bull  was  firmly  believed  and  clearly  taught  by  all  former 
theologians.  Suarez  says  :  "  The  proposition  that  the  pope 
possesses  the  power  of  deposing  heretical  and  obstinate  kings, 
or  kings  who,  in  their  realm,  are  injurious  in  things  apper- 
taining to  the  well-being  of  the  soul,  is  to  be  held  and  be- 
lieved as  a  dogma  of  faith.  For  it  is  contained  in  the  words 
of  Christ  addi'essed  to  Peter  in  a  particular  manner  :  What- 
soever thou  shalt  bind,  &c.,  and  Feed  my  sheep,  &c.,  as  the 
Church  has  always  understood  them,  and  as  Boniface  VIII. 
in  his  hull  Unam  Sanctam  has  most  plainly  declared" 
(Suarez  Defensio  Fid.  lib.  YI.,  c.  8).  Baronius  says  :  "All 
do  assent  to  it  (the  bull  of  Boniface  YIII.)  so  that  none 
dissenteth,  who  doth  not  by  discord  fall  from  the  Church." 
The  same  Baronius  and  Lessius  teach  that  what  Gregory 
YI.  published  in  the  Boman  council  (concerning  this  doc- 
trine) is  suffi.cient  to  make  it  a  dogma  of  faith.  Bellarmine, 
in  his  tractate  against  William  Barclay,  asserts  that  the 
power  of  the  Boman  pontiff  in  temporal  things  is  by  no 
means  a  doubtful  thing,  but  evident  and  clear  to  all  Catho- 
lics ;  and  among  other  proofs,  he  adduces  the  bull  Unam 
Scmctam,     He  shows  that  we  are  taught  by  it  that  one  sword 


302  Roman  Catholicism, 

must  be  under  another;  and  adds  that  Clement  V.,  in  the 
great  synod  of  Vienne,  did  not  revoke  it,  but  rather  admon- 
ished the  faithful  that  it  defined  nothing  new,  but  declared 
the  old  obligation  by  "which  men  must  obey  the  apostolic  see 
and   submit  to  its  decrees.     (Cap.  III.,  p.  37,  Rom.  1610). 

But  we  do  not  mean  to  establish  the  dogmatic  import  of 
this  bull  merely  by  the  opinions  and  arguments  of  theolo- 
gians. For  it  is  a  known  fact  that  all  the  popes  until  the 
seventeenth  century  dogmatically  claimed  supreme  temporal 
authority  over  all  nations  and  kingdoms  as  a  divine  right 
bestowed  upon  them  by  Christ  Himself,  and  anathematized 
the  contrary  doctrine  as  heretical. 

Thus  Pope  Pius  Y.  begins  his  bull  against  Queen  Elizabeth 
in  these  words  :  "  He  that  reigneth  on  high,  to  whom  is 
given  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  hath  committed  the 
one  Holy  and  Apostolic  Church,  out  of  which  there  is  no  sal- 
vation, to  one  alone  on  earth,  namely,  to  Peter,  prince  of  the 
Apostles,  and  to  the  Roman  pontiff,  successor  of  Peter,  to  be 
governed  with  a  plenitude  of  power.  This  one  he  hath  con- 
stituted prince  over  all  nations  and  all  kingdoms,  that  he 
might  pluck  up,  destroy,  dissipate,  ruin,  plant,  and  build." 
And  in  the  same  bull  he  declares  that  "he  thereby  deprives 
the  queen  of  her  pretended  right  to  the  kingdom,  and  of  all 
dominion,  dignity,  and  privilege  whatsoever;  and  absolves 
all  the  nobles,  subjects,  and  people  of  the  kingdom,  and  who- 
soever else  has  sworn  to  her,  from  their  oath,  and  all  duty 
whatsoever,  in  regard  to  dominion,  fidelity,  and  obedience." 
From  this  bull  of  excommunication  it  is  evident  that  Pius  V., 
a  saintly  pope,  believed  and  taught  the  power  of  deposing 
kings  hy  divine  right. 

Sixtus  v.,  in  his  bull  against  Henry,  king  of  Navarre, 
and  the  Prince  of  Conde,  speaks  thus  :  "  The  authority  given 


The  Vatican  Decree  in  the  Light  of  History.    303 

to  St.  Peter  and  his  successors,  by  the  immense  power  of  the 
Eternal  King,  excels  all  the  powers  of  earthly  kings  and 
princes ;  it  passes  uncontrollable  sentence  upon  them  all ;  and 
if  it  find  any  of  them  resisting  God's  ordinance,  it  takes  more 
severe  vengeance  on  them,  casting  them  down  from  their 
thrones,  though  never  so  puissant,  and  tumbling  them  down 
to  the  lowest  parts  of  the  earth,  as  the  ministers  of  aspiring 
Lucifer."  And  then  he  proceeds  to  thunder  against  them  : 
**  We  deprive  them  and  their  posterity  for  ever  of  their  do- 
minions and  kingdoms." 

From  what  we  have  said  it  is  abundantly  evident  that  the 
popes  taught  this  doctrine,  ex  cathedra,  as  a  dogma  of  faith, 
irrevocable  and  unchangeable.  And  here  Roman  Catholics 
are  in  a  difficult  dilemma.  They  must  hold  such  teaching 
to  be  either  true  or  false.  If  they  admit  the  latter,  then 
they  must  also  concede  that  the  popes  enunciating  it  fell  into 
a  damnable  heresy.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  believe  it 
to  be  true,  as  according  to  their  system  they  should,  they 
place  the  papacy  and  the  Church  of  which  it  is  the  head  in  a 
most  odious  position  before  the  whole  world.  In  that  case 
they  need  not  be  astonished  if  every  man's  hand  is  raised 
against  such  an  institution. 

Nor  can  they  escape  from  the  horns  of  the  dilemma  by 
replying  that  such  teaching  was  true  so  long  as  the  then  ex- 
isting law  of  nations  lasted,  but  that  it  has  no  force  and  value 
whatever  in  the  changed  state  of  modern  international  law. 
For  those  popes,  in  their  utterances,  had  no  regard  to  the 
circumstances  of  times  and  places ;  they  spoke  ex  cathedra 
and  enunciated  general  doctrines  applicable  to  all  times; 
they  promulgated  their  supreme  authority  over  temporal 
things  as  a  divine  right,  inherent  in  the  papacy,  and  conferred 
upon  it  by  Christ  Himself.    And  if  they  have  it  jure  divinoy 


304  Roman  Catholicism. 

they  possess  it  for  all  time.  And  if  they  cannot  exercise  it 
now  without  having  the  whole  world  in  arms  against  them, 
they  are  at  liberty  to  enforce  it  again  whenever  cii'cum- 
stances  permit. 

Not  only  here,  but  also  in  other  teachings  of  mediaeval  and 
modern  popes,  sincere  and  intelligent  Eoman  Catholics  must 
feel  themselves  reduced  to  painful  straits.  The  writings  of 
these  popes  are  a  strange  mixture  of  truth  and  error.  Who 
will  sift  them  and  separate  the  one  from  the  other  ?  Who  will 
dare  to  maintain  that,  in  many  of  their  official  utterances, 
they  have  not  fallen  into  egregious  errors  %  The  student  of 
history  must  stand  amazed  at  the  bold  declaration  of  the 
infallibilists,  that  the  popes  as  popes  have  never  fallen  into 
any  error  against  faith  and  morals.  It  is  remarkable  that 
the  bolder  their  pretensions  to  absolute  power  and  infalli- 
bility, the  more  gross  were  the  errors  into  which  the  popes 
fell,  especially  in  regard  to  the  relations  between  Church  and 
State.  We  find  that  those  popes  who  did  not  dream  of  the 
prerogative  of  infallibility  were  less  guilty  of  heresy  than 
those  who  exalted  their  authority  beyond  measure. 

History  furnishes  us  with  several  instances  where  the  old 
bishops  of  Rome  were  not  faithful  guardians  of  the  deposit 
of  faith.  The  apostasy  of  Liberius  who,  in  order  to  purchase 
his  return  from  exile,  condemned  Athanasius,  the  valiant 
champion  of  the  orthodox  faith,  and  subscribed  an  Arian 
creed  (358)  was  always  considered,  until  the  infallibility- 
doctrine  was  formulated,  a  sufficient  example  that  the  popes 
were  liable  to  error.  In  the  controversies  about  grace  and 
original  sin  which  chiefly  agitated  the  West,  Pope  Zosimus 
approved  the  heresy  of  Pelagius  and  Olestius  which  his 
predecessor  Innocent  I.,  and  the  African  synods  had  con- 
demned. 


The  Vatican  Decree  in  the  Light  of  History.    305 

For  several  centuries  the  East  was  agitated  by  fierce  con- 
troveries  about  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity. 
Arianism  was  scarcely  subdued,  when  Nestorianism  arose, 
and  this  heresy  was  followed  by  Eutychianism  and  other 
important  controversies.  These  religious  agitations  greatly 
disturbed  the  peace  of  the  Greek  empire.  The  emperors,  in 
their  efibrts  to  restore  peace,  resorted  to  a  policy  of  com- 
promise. Thus  the  emperor  Justinian  I.  was  advised  that 
the  Eutychians  or  Monophysites  would  return  to  the  Church, 
if  Theodorus  of  Mopsuestia  and  his  writings,  the  tractates  of 
Theodoretus  against  the  anathematismi  of  Cyrillus,  and  the 
letter  of  Ibas  to  Maris  the  Persian  were  condemned.  These 
three  subjects  of  condemnation  were  called  the  Three  Clia])- 
ters.  But  although  these  writings  contaiued  the  Nestorian 
heresy,  many  bishops  were  of  opinion  that  the  ITiree  Chap- 
ters could  not  be  condemned  without  injury  to  the  authority 
of  the  council  of  Chalcedon  which,  in  condemning  the  errors 
of  Nestorius,  refrained  from  inflicting  any  censure  upon  the 
persons  of  Theodorus,  Theodoretus,  and  Ibas.  Mennas, 
patriarch  of  Constantinople  and  other  bishops  subscribed  the 
edict  of-  the  emperor  condemning  the  Three  Chapters,  on 
condition  that  the  bishop  of  Eome  should  likewise  subscribe 
it.  But  Pope  Yigilius  hedged  in  this  controversy.  He 
thrice  contradicted  himself.  Pirst,  he  pronounced  the  Three 
Chapters  orthodox  (in  546)  j  a  year  afterwards  he  condemned 
them ;  then  again  he  returned  to  his  first  teaching  and 
vacillated  in  a  manner  pitiably  unworthy  of  an  infallible 
teacher,  during  the  fifth  general  council,  which  anathematized 
the  fickle  pope.  He  finally  submitted  to  the  decree  of  the 
council.  But  the  Western  bishops  arose  in  indignation 
against  him  as  a  traitor  to  the  faith  of  the  council  of  Chalce- 
don and  separated  from  his  communion  and  a  long  schism  in 
20 


306  Roman  Catholicism. 

the  West  was  the  consequence.  From  this  it  appears  that 
the  Church  did  not  believe  the  pope  to  be  endowed  with  the 
prerogative  of  infallibility.  How  deeply  rooted  the  con- 
viction of  the  pope's  fallibility  was,  may  be  seen,  among 
other  documents  of  that  time,  from  the  letter  of  St.  Columba, 
of  Ireland,  who  wrote  to  Pope  Boniface  III. :  "  Vigila,  pater, 
vigila,  quia  forte  non  bene  vigilavit  Yigilius,  quem  caput 
scandali  illi  clamant.  Dolendum  est  et  flendum,  si  in  sede 
Apostolica  fides  Catholica  non  tenetur."* 

Not  long  afterwards  another  pope  fell  into  heresy  in  a 
similar  case  of  compromise.  Heraclius,  tjae  Greek  emperor, 
after  having  gained  brilliant  victories  over  the  Persians  and 
snatched  from  them  Egypt  and  Syria,  was  anxious  that  the 
Monophy sites  should  be  united  with  the  Church.  They 
were  very  numerous  in  the  conquered  provinces  ;  in  Egypt 
alone  they  numbered  over  fifteen  millions.  Some  of  their 
bishops  asserted  that  they  and  their  adherents  were  willing 
to  profess  that  there  were  two  natures  in  Christ,  provided 
the  Catholics  admitted  that  there  was  only  one  operation  and 
one  will  in  Him.  Sergius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
thought  that  a  union  under  some  such  compact  might  be 
effected,  and  Heraclius  agreed.  In  the  year  633,  the  Mono- 
physites  of  Alexandria,  called  Theodosians  after  their  former 
bishop,  united  with  the  Catholics,  on  condition  that  they 
might  be  allowed  to  profess  only  one  human-divine  {'^iBav- 
dpiH7}'v)  operation  in  Christ.  Cyrus,  patriarch  of  Alexan- 
dria, showed  the  articles  of  union  to  Sophronius,  a  pious  and 
learned  monk,  who  highly  disapproved  of  them,  and  as  he 
could  not  obtain  their  abolition  at  Alexandria,  he  betook 
himself  to  Sergius.      This  prelate,  fearing  lest  a  public  agita- 

*Watch,  father,  watch,  for  Vigilius  (watcher),  whom  they  call  the 
head  of  this  scandal,  did  not  watch  very  well.  It  is  to  be  regretted 
and  lamented  if  the  Catholic  faith  is  not  kept  in  the  Apostohc  see. 


The  Vatican  Decree  in  the  Light  of  History.     307 

tion  of  this  question  might  throw  serious  impediments  in  the 
way  of  his  and  the  emperor's  scheme  of  union,  wrote  to  Cyrus 
counselling  silence,  as  well  «i  one  as  on  two  operations  in 
Christ.  While  thus  the  Theodosians,  according  to  the  terms 
of  union,  were  allowed  to  believe  only  in  one  operation,  the 
Catholics  were  restrained  from  teaching  two  operations  or 
rejecting  the  doctrine  of  one  only  operation.  Shortly  after- 
wards Sophronius  was  elected  patriarch  of  Jerusalem. 
Sergius  wrote  to  pope  Honorius  I.,  in  order  to  obtain  his 
approbation  of  what  he  had  already  done  in  the  matter.  He 
deserves  credit  for  not  concealing  anything  in  this  letter 
from  the  Roman  pontiff,  and  for  explaining  accurately  the 
whole  bearing  of  the  question.  Honorius,  in  his  letters  to 
Sergius  and  the  other  two  patriarchs,  not  only  approves  of 
the  policy  of  silence,  but  clearly  teaches  the  Monothelite 
error ;  nay,  if  we  compare  his  letters  with  those  of  Sergius, 
we  find  that  he  surpasses  that  prelate  in  the  explicitness  of 
his  erroneous  teaching.  These  letters  are  a  standing  monu- 
ment of  the  fallibility  of  the  pope  ;  and  no  fanciful  exegesis 
can  purge  him  of  the  stain  of  heresy. 

To  maintain  that  Honorius  wrote  these  heretical  letters 
only  as  a  private  person  would  be  a  strange  ignoring  of  his- 
tory. For  Sergius  by  no  means  concealed  from  the  pontiff 
the  importance  of  the  whole  matter.  A  great  scheme  had 
been  planned  which  aimed  to  bring  back  the  great  patriar- 
chate of  Alexandria  to  the  unity  of  faith,  the  communion 
with  the  Church.  Numerous  Theodosians  had  already 
entered  this  union,  and  both  Sergius  and  the  Emperor  anti- 
cipated that  the  rest  of  the  Monophysites  would  follow  their 
example.  The  question  now  was  whether  the  concessions 
made  to  them  were  consonant  with  the  Catholic  faith.  The 
paUiaichs  of  CoiisoaiiLinople  and  Alexandria  held  that  the 


308  Roman  Catholicism, 

compromise  was  orthodox,  but  the  patriarch  of  Jerusalem  waa 
of  a  different  opinion.  A  schism  was  thus  imminent  in  the 
East.  All  the  circumstances  of  the  question  were  such  as  to 
induce  Honorius  to  proceed  with  the  greatest  caution  but 
with  the  whole  weight  of  his  exalted  position.  He  could 
not  be  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  Sergius  sought  his  assent  in 
order  to  employ  it  against  Sophronius  and  his  party,  and 
that  he  would  use  his  letter  as  the  authoritative  decision 
of  the  Roman  see,  not  as  the  private  opinion  of  Honorius. 
The  pope,  being  aware  of  all  this,  wrote  his  famous  letter  with 
the  greatest  care  and  after  the  gravest  consideration,  calling 
to  his  aid  in  its  composition  the  services  of  the  learned 
abbot,  John  Simpo.  Thus  it  would  be  utterly  absurd  to 
look  upon  it  as  a  mere  private  opinion  of  a  certain  Honorius 
who  happened  to  be  bishop  of  Rome. 

What  therefore  shall  we  think  of  Pope  Honorius  ?  Was 
he  a  heretic  %  The  sixth  oecumenical  council,  held  at  Con- 
stantinople in  778,  declared  him  so  to  be  and  anathematized 
him  and  his  letter  not  only  once,  but  repeatedly,  and  that  in 
the  strongest  terms.  The  Roman  see  submitted  to  this 
condemnation.  Pope  Leo  II.  in  his  letter  written  in  confir- 
mation of  the  council  severely  censures  the  writings  of 
Honorius.  The  seventh  oecumenical  council  (in  787)  and 
the  eighth  (in  869),  repeated  the  sentence  of  excommunica- 
tion against  him.  The  popes  not  only  confirmed  the  sentence 
of  these  three  councils,  but  for  three  hundred  years  after- 
wards, in  a  solemn  oath  at  their  accession  to  the  papal 
throne,  accepted  the  decrees  of  the  sixth  council  and  pro- 
nounced "  an  eternal  anathema  "  on  the  authors  and  abet- 
tors of  the  Monothelite  heresy,  among  whom  Honorius  was 
expressly  included.  Even  in  the  Roman  breviary'  the 
memory  of  this  condemnation  was  pre-orved  until  the  six- 


The  Vatican  Decree  in  the  Li^t  of  History.    309 

teenth  century,  for  we  read  in  the  lection  for  the  feast  of  St. 
Leo  II.,  the  26th  day  of  June  :  "  In  which  synod  were  con- 
demned Sergius,  Cyrus,  Honorius,  Pyrrhus,  &c,,  who  asserted 
and  predicted  one  will  and  operation  in  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ." 

Thus  we  have  a  fact  as  clear  as  noon-day  that  the  whole 
Church,  together  with  the  pope,  considered  the  occupants  of 
the  Roman  see  not  only  liable  to  fall  into  heresy,  but  that 
one  of  them  was  actually  a  heretic.  The  heresy  of  Honor- 
ius is  as  evident  a  fact  as  any  in  Church-history,  although 
the  Jesuits  have  made  desperate  efforts  to  demolish  it.  Baron- 
ius  pronounces  the  acts  of  the  council  a  downright  forgery  of 
the  Greeks;  Bellarmine  declares  the  letters  of  Honorius 
forgeries;  neither  of  them  proffer  a  scintilla  of  evidence 
for  his  assertion.  Having  been  compelled  to  give  up  this 
shift  they  have  endeavoured  since  the  middle  of  the  last  cen 
tury,  to  explain  the  letters  of  Honorius  in  an  orthodox  sense. 
But  the  fact  remains  that  Pope  Honorius  was  a  heretic. 

Forgeries  indeed  !  The  infallibilists  are  the  men  who  make 
use  of  forgeries  to  establish  their  doctrine.  We  have  spoken 
of  these  forgeries  in  one  of  the  preceding  lectures.  The 
pame  spurious  documents  which  were  fabricated  to  establish 
papal  absolutism  were  afterwards  used  to  advance  his  claim 
to  infallibility.  The  principles  laid  down  in  these  forgeries 
formed  the  foundation  of  the  mediaeval  papacy,  became  the 
basis  of  all  the  canon-law  of  the  Church,  entered  into  her 
very  life,  and  completely  changed  her  constitution.  These 
spurious  documents,  having  once  gained  a  firm  footing  in  the 
Church,  were  believed  for  centuries  to  be  genuine,  and  it  re- 
quired a  resolute  criticism  to  expose  their  spurious  origin. 
On  thei?e  documents  the  doctrine  of  infallibility  is  based. 
On<3  pf  ifce  often  recurring  sayings  of  the  pseudo-Isidoriaa 


310  Roman  Catholicism. 

decretals  is  :  "  The  Koman  Church  remains  to  the  end  free 
from  the  stain  of  heresy."  With  these  materials  in  hand 
the  Jesuits  (as  the  authors  of  the  learned  and  reliable  work, 
"  The  Pope  and  the  Council  "  conclusively  prove)  built  up 
and  developed  their  system  of  papal  infallibility. 


LECTUEE    VIII. 

THE  VATICAN  DEGREE  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

SCRIPTUHE  is  the  last  source  of  arguments  to  whicli 
Eoman  Catholics  appeal.  As  we  saw  in  the  first  part 
of  this  course  of  lectures,  tradition  is  indispensable,  Scripture 
is  merely  desirable  in  proving  any  of  their  dogmas.  But 
can  they  find  arguments  from  Scripture  to  justify  the  Yati- 
can  decree  ? 

The  Old  Testament  is  against  them.  The  Jews  had  no  in- 
fallible tribunal  to  which  they  appealed  in  any  controver- 
sies and  religious  difficulties.  The  Scriptures  were  their  rule 
of  faith.  Their  high  priest  was  not  believed  to  possess  the 
gift  of  infallibility.  Was  Caiaphas  infallible  when  he  de- 
clared our  Lord  guilty  of  blasphemy,  because  he  professed  to 
be  the  Son  of  God  ? 

But  can  they  prove  their  dogma  from  the  writings  of  the 
New  Testament  1  Dr.  Newman  says  that  *•  the  long  history 
of  the  contest  for  or  against  the  pope's  infallibility  has  been 
but  a  growing  insight  into  the  meaning  of  these  three 
texts,"  namely.  Matt,  xvi.,  16-19;  John  xxi.,  15-17;  Luke 
xxii.,  32.  He  means  that  these  three  texts  have  been  devel- 
oped, and  that  the  dogma  of  papal  infallibility  is  the  result  of 
this  development.  But  if  so,  the  dogma  must  be  contained 
in  them  as  the  conclusion  is  contained  in  the  premisses,  for 
no  other   kind  of  development  is   admissible.      We  con- 


312  Roman  Catholicism. 

sidered  these  texts  in  one  of  tlie  preceding  lectures  and 
found  that  they  cannot  be  interpreted  as  conferring  imme- 
diate and  episcopal  jurisdiction  on  St.  Peter  over  the  Apos- 
tles and  the  whole  Church  ;  but  let  us  make  some  further  re- 
marks. 

The  Roman  Catholic  rule  of  interpretation  is  restricted  by 
the  following  article  in  the  creed  of  Pius  V.,  "  Neither  will 
I  ever  take  and  interpret  them  (the  Scriptures)  otherwise, 
than  according  to  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  fathers." 
They  are  bound  therefore  not  to  deviate  from  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  fathers.  But  the  infallibilists  glaringly  and  un 
scrupulously  transgress  this  cardinal  rule  of  their  Church 
We  challenge  them  to  produce  even  one  of  the  fathers  inter- 
preting these  texts  in  the  sense  of  papal  infallibility.  We 
know  that  this  unanimous  consent  of  the  fathers  is  a  fiction, 
except  as  regards  the  fundamental  truths  of  Christianity.  Is 
the  orthodox  interpretation  of  the  Bible  confined  to  the 
patristic  centuries  %  Has  biblical  exegesis  been  at  a  stand- 
still since  Gregory  the  Great,  the  last  of  the  fathers  % 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  the  infallibilists  extract 
their  dogma  from  these  texts.  In  regard  to  Matt,  xvi.,  18, 
they  argue  that  "  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against 
the  Church,"  because  she  is  built  on  Peter  and  his  successors 
as  on  a  rock  ;  if  therefore  the  bishops  of  Rome,  the  succes- 
sors of  St.  Peter  should  fall  into  heresy,  Satan  would  pre- 
vail against  the  Church. 

We  answer,  first,  that  between  the  conclusion  and  pre- 
misses  of  this  argument  there  are  many  intermediate  links 
which  require  proof,  and  we  demonstrated,  in  a  preceding 
lecture,  that  they  cannot  be  proved.  A  thoughtful  insight 
into  this  text  will  convince  any  unprejudiced  thinker  that 
tjbe  'whoU  object  of  this  dialogue  \^  faith  in  the  divine  JSonshi^ 


The  Vatican  Decree  in  the  Light  of  Scripture.  313 

of  Christ,  and  He  evidently  intends  to  say  that  such  a  faith 
is  a  rock — the  foundation  on  which  His  Church  is  built,  and 
further  that  so  long  as  this  foundation  on  which  the  whole 
superstructure  rests  remains  firm  and  intact,  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  And  this  faith  is  not  in- 
fused into  the  Church  by  Peter  and  his  successors  ;  for  it  is 
the  gift  of  God.  Christ  Himself,  in  the  above  text,  says  : 
*'  Flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my 
Father  which  is  in  heaven." 

In  regard  to  John  xxi.,  15,  they  maintain  that  the  words, 
"  Feed  my  lambs,  feed  my  sheep,"  signify  feeding  the  whole 
flock  with  sound  doctrine.  Now,  how  could  Peter  and  his 
successors  dp  so,  if  in  their  official  capacity  they  were  liable 
to  error  1  n 

We  answer  and  have  proved  that  the  conversation  be- 
tween Christ  and  Peter,  at  the  sea  of  Tiberias,  was  rather  a 
humiliation  than  an  exaltation  of  the  latter.  It  was  a  renewal 
of  his  call  to  the  Apostleship,  which  the  Lord  wished  to 
make  particularly  impressive  to  him  after  his  shameful  denial. 
Besides,  the  same  office  of  feeding  the  whole  flock  was  given 
to  all  the  other  Apostles.  What  else  means  the  commission, 
"  Go,  teach  all  nations  "  ? 

They  believe  they  have  a  strong  proof  of  their  dogma  in 
Luke  xxii.,  32,  "And  the  Lord  said,  Simon,  Simon,  behold 
Satan  hath  desired  to  have  you,  that  he  may  sift  you  as 
wheat :  but  I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not : 
and  when  thou  art  converted,  strengthen  thy  brethren." 
They  say  that  Christ  prayed  that  the  faith  of  Peter  and  his 
successors  fail  not.  Christ's  prayer  would  have  no  efficacy,  if 
the  Roman  pontifis,  the  successors  of  Peter,  could  fall  into 
dogmatic  errors.  How  could  they  be  said  to  strengthen 
their  brethren  in  the  faith  if  they  themselves  could  fall  from, 
iihe  faith  into  heresy  1 


314  Roman  Catholicism. 

We  answer  that  this  text,  also,  is  rather  a  humiliation  than 
an  exaltation  of  Peter.  Christ,  in  the  immediately  follow- 
ing verses,  foretells  him  that  he  will  deny  Him  thrice.  He 
exhorts  him  as  it  were,  not  to  despair  after  his  fall,  like 
Judas,  but  to  rise  again,  since  He  has  prayed  for  him  that  his 
faith  fail  not.  He  shall  not  cease  to  be  an  Apostle,  on  ac- 
count of  his  fall,  but  strengthen  and  comfort  his  brethren  in 
the  sore  trials  that  await  them.  Nothing  is  said  here  of 
teaching,  but  only  of  supporting  and  strengthening  the  faith 
they  already  possessed,  in  order  to  keep  them  from  falling 
and  denying  their  Saviour.  Thus  the  text  is  explained  by 
the  fathers ;  and  Boman  Catholics  should  interpret  it  accord- 
ing to  their  unanimous  consent.  Faith  here,  evidently,  does 
not  mean,  as  the  infallibilists  would  have  it,  orthodoxy  or 
assent  to  dogmas,  but,  as  nearly  always  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, trust  in  and  attachment  to,  Christ.  If  the  Roman 
Catholic  interpretation  were  true,  it  would  prove  too  much ; 
it  would  suppose  that  the  popes  have  fallen  and  been  con- 
verted, like  Peter.  We  know  the  former  to  be  a  fact,  but 
we  cannot  vouch  for  the  latter. 

We  are  of  a  different  opinion  from  Dr.  Newman  in  regard 
to  "  the  growing  insight  into  these  three  texts  through  cen- 
turies," as  confirming  the  dogma  of  infallibility.  We  are 
compelled  to  confess  that  the  whole  history  of  the  papacy  has 
given  us  a  growing  insight  into  the  manner  in  which  these 
sacred  texts  have  been  abused  to  establish  an  untenable,  nay, 
a  blasphemous,  claim  which  cannot  fail  to  issue  ultimately  in 
the  ruin  and  downfall  of  the  papacy. 

We  conclude  this  Lecture  by  some  striking  remarks  of  Dr. 
Schaff  (Hist,  of  the  Vat.  Council,  p.  30)  : 

"The  constant  appeal  of  the  Roman  Church  to  Peter 
suggests  a  significant  parallel.     There  is  a  spiritual  Petei 


The  Vatican  Decree  in  the  Light  of  Scripture.  315 

and  a  carnal  Simon,  who  are  separated,  indeed,  by  regenera- 
tion, yet  after  all,  not  so  completely  that  the  old  nature  does 
not  occasionally  re-appear  in  the  new  man." 

"  It  was  the  spiritual  Peter  who  forsook  all  to  follow 
Christ ;  who  first  confessed  him  as  the  Son  of  God,  and  hence 
was  palled  rock ;  who  after  his  terrible  fall  wept  bitterly ; 
was  re-instated  and  entrusted  with  the  care  of  Christ's  sheep ; 
who,  on  the  birthday  of  the  Chm'ch,  preached  the  first  mis- 
sionary sermon,  and  gathered  in  the  three  thousand  converts; 
who  in  the  Apostles'  council  protested  against  the  narrow 
bigotry  of  the  Judaizers,  and  stood  up  with  Paul  for  the 
principle  of  salvation  by  grace  alone  through  faith  in  Christ ; 
who,  in  his  epistles,  warns  all  ministers  against  hierarchical 
pride,  and  exhibits  a  wonderful  meekness,  gentleness,  and 
humility  of  spirit,  showing  that  divine  grace  had  overruled 
and  sanctified  to  him  even  his  fall ;  and  who  followed  at  last 
his  master  to  the  cross  of  martyrdom." 

"  It  was  the  carnal  Simon  who  presumed  to  divert  his 
Lord  from  the  path  of  sufiering,  and  drew  on  him  the  rebuke 
^  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan ;  thou  art  a  stumbling-block 
unto  me,  for  thou  mindest  not  the  things  of  Qpd,  but  the 
things  of  men ;'  the  Simon  who,  in  mistaken  zeal,  used  the 
sword  and  cut  ofi"  the  ear  of  Malchus  ;  who  proudly  boasted 
of  his  unswerving  fidelity  to  his  Master,  and  yet  a  few  hours 
afterwards  denied  Him  thrice  before  a  servant  woman ;  who 
even  after  the  Pentecostal  illumination  was  overcome  by  his 
natural  weakness,  and  from  policy  or  fear  of  the  Judaizing 
party  was  untrue  to  his  better  convictions,  so  as  to  draw  on 
him  the  public  rebuke  of  the  younger  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles. 
Tlie  Romish  legend  of  Domine  quo  vadis  makes  him  relapse 
into  his  inconstancy  even  a  day  before  his  martyrdom,  and 
memorializes  it  in  a  chapel  outside  of  Rome." 


316  Roman  Catholicism, 

"  The  reader  may  judge  whether  the  history  of  the  popes 
reflects  more  the  character  of  the  spiritual  Peter,  or  the 
carnal  Simon.  If  the  Apostolic  Church  prophetically  anti- 
cipates and  foreshadows  the  whole  course  of  Christian  his- 
tory, the  temporary  collision  of  Peter,  the  Apostle  of  the  cir- 
cumcision, and  Paul,  the  Apostle  of  the  uncircumcision,  at 
Antioch,  is  a  significant  type  of  the  antagonism  between 
Romanism  and  Protestantism,  between  the  Church  of  the 
binding  law  and  the  Church  of  the  free  Gospel." 


LECTUKE    IX. 

THEORY  AND  FACT. 

WE  have  hitherto  considered  the  whole  question  of  in- 
fallibility, both  episcopal  and  paj^al,  examining  the 
arguments  on  which  its  adherents  rely,  noticing  its  develop- 
ment, and  reviewing  its  practical  bearing  upon  Eoman 
dogmas  and  discipline.  And  the  conclusion  we  arrive  at  is, 
that  we  cannot  help  discovering  a  remarkable  discrepancy 
between  hypothesis  and  fact. 

This  discrepancy  makes  its  appearance,  at  the  very  outset, 
in  the  arguments  by  which  they  endeavour  to  establish  the 
infallibility  dogma.  They  are  not  content  with  moral  cer- 
tainty in  acquiring  God's  revealed  truths,  but  they  want 
absolute  certainty  or  infallibility.  And  how  can  they  prove 
this  infallibility,  but  by  making  it  rest  upon  a  belief  in 
Christianity  itself  which  is  necessarily  of  the  nature  of  moral 
historical  evidence  1  It  is  astonishing  that  the  Roman 
Church  with  its  cloud  of  learned  theologians,  profound  philo- 
sophers, and  shrewd  thinkers,  does  not  see  that  the  con- 
clusions of  faith  cannot  be  logically  stronger  than  the  amount 
of  historical  evidence  on  which  the  claims  of  Christianity 
itself  are  based?  How  can  men  accept  a  theory  which  is 
equivalent  to  the  assumption  that  the  inferences  in  a  process 
of  reasoning  can  be  more  certain  than  the  premisses  on  which 
they  rest  ?     Let  them  try  as  they  may,  they  cannot  find  pre- 


318  Roman  Catholicisin. 

misses  which  logically  contain  the  infallibility-doctrine.  The 
fact  is,  that  in  God's  dealings  with  man,  the  acquisition  of 
truth  by  means  of  long  and  patient  struggle  has  been  the 
universal  law  of  human  thought  from  the  time  when  men 
first  began  to  reason. 

There  is  a  strange  contrast  between  the  infallibility  doc- 
trine and  its  practical  influence  on  the  belief  of  the  Church. 
Rome,  by  hypothesis,  should  be  the  most  pure,  when  in  fact, 
she  is  the  most  corrupt  Church  in  Christendom,  beyond  the 
hope  of  reform,  and  corruptible  ad  infinitum. 

Roman  Catholics  themselves  have  felt  that  episcopal  infal- 
libility by  no  means  met  the  ends  for  which  it  was  proposed. 
Will  the  dogma  of  papal  inerrancy  have  better  success? 
Will  it  be  the  panacea  for  all  the  ills  of  the  Church,  settling 
all  controversies  of  faith,  and  removing  every  doubt  %  We 
foresee  that  the  difficulties  of  Rome,  instead  of  decreasing, 
will  be  multiplied,  not  only  within  her  own  bosom,  but  also 
in  her  relations  with  the  non-Catholic  world. 

This  point  has  been  prominently  brought  forward  in  the 
recent  controversy  about  the  infallibility-question.  A  brief 
review,  therefore,  of  this  interesting  debate  in  which  the 
leading  thinkers  on  both  sides  have  been  earnestly  engaged 
may  give  us  some  insight  into  the  real  value  and  consequen- 
ces of  the  papal  infallibility-dogma. 

The  two  prominent  figures  in  this  controversy  are  Mr. 
Gladstone  and  Dr.  Newman,  Protestant  Churchmen  rejoiced 
when  they  first  heard  that  Mr.  Gladstone  had  appeared  as  an 
antagonist  of  the  papacy  and  the  champion  of  Protestantism. 
Many  were,  no  doubt,  prejudiced  against  him  by  the  vague 
reports  that  from  time  to  time  came  to  their  ears  of  his  ex- 
treme high-churchism  and  his  Romeward  tendencies.  Per- 
haps his  public  policy  in  favour  oi"  the  Irish  Roman  Catho- 


Theory  and  Fact.  319 

lies  gave  currency  to  these  rumours.  Thej  were  pleased, 
therefore,  when  his  pamphlets  made  their  appearance.  And 
they  had  reason  to  be  pleased,  for  he  proved  his  thesis  to  the 
satisfaction  of  all  fair-minded  thinkers.  His  "  Vaticanism  " 
is  a  crushing  reply  to  all  v/ho  have  entered  the  lists  against 
him. 

For  Dr.  Newman  I  have  no  feeling  but  that  of  sincere 
sympathy.  I  was  a  divinity  student  of  Propaganda  College, 
Rome,  when  he,  shortly  after  having  renounced  Protestant- 
ism, entered  that  institution  and  remained  there  for  nearly 
two  years,  in  order  to  become  thoroughly  imbued  with  the 
spirit  of  Romanism  and  to  prepare  for  his  re-ordination  to 
the  Romish  priesthood.  I  attended  the  same  lectures  and 
was  also  present  at  his  re-ordination.  I  had  the  pleasure  of 
visiting  him  occasionally  in  his  retreat  in  company  with 
other  students.  Well  do  I  remember  his  thoughtful  coun- 
tenance, his  kindly  smile  and  unostentatious  humility.  He 
eminently  possessed  what  Roman  Catholics  call  the  pietas 
fidei.  How  different  are  men's  minds  and  ways  !  While  he 
and  his  associates  joined  the  Church  of  Rome  hoping  to  find 
peace  there,  others  with  equal  sincerity  left  that  Church, 
looking  upon  it  as  the  work  of  man,  and  finding  peace  in 
evangelical  religion.  How  many  things  of  ecclesiastical  im- 
portance have  occurred  since  then !  How  has  the  Church  of 
Rome  changed  even  in  that  brief  period  ! 

Dr.  Newman  was  not  an  Ultramontane ;  how  then  can  he 
and  others  find  peace  in  Rome  after  the  Vatican  definition? 
He,  like  many  other  honest  souls,  never  expected  the  decree. 
But  when  it  was  passed  he  accepted  it,  because  he  was  able 
CO  reason  his  private  judgment  into  receiving  it  and  to  mini- 
mize it,  that  is,  to  whittle  it  down  to  an  invisibly  fine  point, 
which  cannot  stand  the  test  of  practical  application.     iJr, 


320  Roman  Catholicism, 

Newman  is  a  minimizer  and  advocates  the  principle  of  mini- 
mizing "  as  necessary  for  a  wise  and  cautious  theology." 

When  papal  infallibility  was  still  an  open  question, 
Koman  Catholics  were  divided  into  two  large  schools,  the 
Gallican  and  Ultramontane.  The  Vatican  council  silenced 
for  ever  the  Gallican  school.  But  what  became  of  the 
liberal-minded  men  who  were  imbued  with  its  principles? 
Did  they  leave  the  Church  ?  Only  the  brave  band  of  Old 
Catholics  had  the  courage  to  break  off  with  Rome ;  the  rest 
remained  where  they  were.  But  have  they  become  out-and- 
out  Ultramontanes  %  No ;  they  have  found  out  a  new  path  j 
they  reduce  papal  infallibility  to  its  minimum.  On  this  ac- 
count they  are  called  minimizers,  while  those  who  advocate 
the  importance  of  this  gift  and  its  practical  bearings  on  all 
the  departments  of  the  Church's  life  go  by  the  name  of 
maximizers.  In  a  word,  the  Vatican  definition  has  still  left 
ample  room  for  open  questions,  and  the  camp  of  theologians  is 
again  divided  into  two  great  schools.  The  one  includes  all 
the  liberal-minded  Churchmen,  and  the  other  is  composed  of 
the  Ultramontanes  pure  and  simple. 

And  mark  well  that  the  very  form  and  nature  of  the  Vati- 
can definition — now  the  corner-stone  of  the  whole  Boman 
Catholic  creed — the  difficulty  of  finding  out  real  ex-cathedrd 
decrees,  and  their  slippery  condition,  have  caused  this  new 
division  within  the  ClUirch.  Here,  then,  we  have  a  com- 
plete disproof  of  that  boasted  uniformity  in  helieving,  in  the 
Church  of  Bome,  which  has  attracted  to  her  so  many  people 
impatient  of  the  divine  discipline  of  enquiry  and  responsi- 
bility. 

Where,  amidst  the  disputes  of  the  scholce  theologorum,  can 
the  sincere  and  honest  member  of  the  Church  find  the  certain 
voice  of  the  living  teacher,  on  which  Bome  predicates  her 


Theory  and  Fact  321 

boast  of  pre-eminence  over  all  Churches  and  her  taunts 
against  Protestantism.  Is  not  the  procedure  of  these 
eminent  scholce  a  proof  that  they  have  no  stronger  certainty 
to  offer  than  we  1  Kome's  claim  to  infallibility  is  all  a  pre- 
tence. It  involves  greater  labour  to  find  out,  by  the  mini- 
mizing tests,  when  the  pope  means  to  be  infallible,  than  to 
find  out,  by  Scripture  and  history,  whether  his  utterances 
are  true  or  false.  And  when  you  have  taken  the  trouble  to 
discover  the  former,  you  must  still  go  through  the  difficult 
process  of  enquiring  into  the  latter.  After  all,  it  would  ap- 
pear that  a  confiding  world  is  to  be  still  left  in  the  dark  as 
to  the  province  and  limit  of  that  infallibility.  The  doctors  to 
whom  we  would  look  for  a  qitasi  authoritative  explanation 
are  by  no  means  at  one.  Some  give  us  the  minimum,  others 
the  maximum  of  papal  authority. 

But  what  does  it  matter !  Roman  Catholic  divines  of 
whatever  school  have  no  longer  any  claim  to  represent  the 
papacy  in  its  doctrines.  Theology  has  altogether  lost  its  for- 
mer position.  Strange  contradiction  1  The  scholce  have  to 
find  out  first  the  very  existence  and  then  the  meaning  of  a 
papal  decree,  and,  after  all,  what  are  their  arduous  labours 
and  subtle  distinctions  worth  in  determining  such  a  certainty 
of  faith  as  the  Roman  Church  claims  and  requires  %  Nothing, 
absolutely  nothing.  "  The  question  is  simply  now  what  the 
pope  says.  He  can  no  longer  speak  by  any  agent  whom  it 
may  hereafter  be  convenient  to  disavow  ]  this  difficulty  is 
one  inseparable  from  the  late  dogma.  It  is  no  longer  quod 
ubique,  quod  semper,  quod  ah  omnihus  which  defines  the 
Roman  faith,  but  quod  hodie  in  Vaticano,  a  Bomino  Nost/ro 
Papa  is  declared  authoritative.  No  disclaimers  on  the  part 
of  any  Romish  doctor,  however  eminent,  can  have  any  force 
except  as  his  individual  understanding  of  the  papal   posi-. 

21 


322  Boman  Catholicism, 

tion.  It  may  be  interesting  to  know  what  Dr.  ISTewman,  as 
a  representative  of  English  E-omanism  of  a  certain  school, 
would  like  to  think,  but  as  a  statement  of  the  position  of  the 
Koman  curia,  nothing  is  gained  from  one  or  from  a  hundred 
similar  treatises.  That  is  the  inherent  fault  of  a  monarchical 
despotism.  In  being  reduced  to  a  single  will  and  head,  it 
necessarily  loses  the  efficient  aid  of  all  who  are  not  ready  to 
become  the  blind  instruments  of  that  centralized  power. 
Manning  and  Newman  are  both  out  of  the  game.  They  can 
neither  shape  the  policy  nor  bind  the  conscience  of  the  Vati- 
can."— (Hartford  Churchman.) 

The  fact  is,  as  Mr.  Gladstone  forcibly  proves,  "  the  entire 
Christian  religion,  since  the  Vatican  decree,  is  in  the  last 
resort  placed  in  the  breast  of  the  pope."  As  the  infallible  and 
absolute  monarch  of  the  Church,  he  is  neither  bound  by  the 
definitions  of  the  Church  in  faith  and  morals,  for  they  are 
another  Scripture  and  may  be  interpreted  by  him  absolutely ; 
nor  by  the  Canon  Law,  for  he  is  the  supreme  ecclesiastical 
lawgiver  and  may  abolish  or  suspend  any  law  at  any  time ; 
nor  by  former  declarations  of  the  popes,  for  he  will  say  that 
they  did  not  speak  ex  cathedra  ;  nor  by  the  moral  and  divine 
law,  by  the  commandments  of  God,  or  by  the  rules  of  the 
Gospel,  for  of  all  these  the  pope  himself,  by  himself,  is  the 
supreme  judge,  without  appeal. 

The  maximizing  divines,  as  a  matter  of  course,  admit  this 
thesis,  but  deny  its  injurious  consequences  by  maintaining 
that  the  pope  is  protected  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  They  are  not 
ashamed  to  avow  their  faith  in  this  distasteful  doctrine  in  its 
obvious  meaning,  nay  they  glory  in  having  a  living,  easily 
accessible  and  permanent  oracle  at  Home  to  whom  they 
willingly  and  cheerfully  submit  their  mental  liberty.  They 
rejoice  in  being  the  blind  and  docile  servants  of  the  pope. 


Theory  and  Fact.  323 

But  the  minimizing  theologians  are  of  different  opinion. 
They  labour  with  all  their  might  to  retain  some  shred  of 
their  spiritual  liberty.  They  are  vdlling  to  believe  the  pope  ; 
but  only  when  he  speaks  the  truth  as  contained  in  the 
deposit  of  faith.  They  are  ready  to  obey  him,  but  not 
blindly,  and  only  when  they  can  see  that  his  commands  are 
not  contrary  to  the  moral  or  divine  law,  or  to  the  dictates 
of  their  own  conscience.  Hence  they  are  at  hand  with  their 
limitations  and  conditions  by  which  they  endeavour  to 
restrain  the  absolutism  of  papal  infallibility.  Yain  en- 
deavour ! 

It  would  be  utterly  useless  to  break  a  lance  with  the  maxi- 
mizers.  They  are  in  favour  with  the  pope  and  are  in  power. 
They  embrace  the  dogma  to  its  fullest  extent,  and,  filled 
with  fanatical  pride,  are  deaf  to  fair  argumentation. 

We  enter,  therefore,  the  field  with  the  minimizing  theolo- 
gians, and  if  we  prove  that  their  ground  is  untenable,  we  are 
entitled  to  conclude  a  fortiori  that  the  position  of  the  maxi- 
mizers  is  also  indefensible.  Of  course,  we  do  not  intend  to 
review  their  arguments  in  favour  of  papal  infallibility  \  we 
have  done  this  in  the  preceding  lectures  \  here  we  shall  con- 
sider only  those  limitations  and  conditions,  by  which  they 
endeavour  to  prove  that  the  Vatican  decree  has  not  changed 
the  constitution  of  their  Church,  and  that  they  have  not  lost 
their  mental  liberty  by  submission  to  it. 

Dr.  Newman  says,  "  I  begin  with  a  remark  which  sug- 
gests the  drift  of  all  I  have  to  say  about  it  (the  Vatican 
definition).  It  is  this  :  that  so  difficult  a  virtue  is  faith, 
even  with  the  special  grace  of  God,  in  proportion  as  the 
reason  is  exercised,  so  difficult  is  it  to  assent  inwardly  to 
propositions  verified  to  us  neither  by  reason  nor  experience, 
but  depending  for  their  reception  on  the  word  of  the  Church 


324  Roman  Catholicism. 

as  God's  oracle,  that  she  has  ever  shown  the  utmost  care  to 
contract,  as  far  as  possible,  the  range  of  truths  and  the  sense 
of  propositions  of  which  she-  demands  this  absolute  recep- 
tion." 

Yes,  faith  is  a  difficult  virtue  in  the  Eoman  system,  and 
the  difficulty  is  a  fundamental  one.  It  lies  in  the  impossi- 
bility of  giving  a  logical  explanation  of  their  act  of  faith. 
Every  intelligent  and  conscientious  Roman  Catholic  feels  it. 
His  God-given  reasoning  powers  urge  him  to  find  out  a 
logical  genesis  of  his  faith,  and  in  attempting  to  do  so,  he  is 
in  a  maze  of  perplexities.  On  the  one  hand,  he  is  commanded 
to  believe  all  the  tenets  of  his  Church,  with  an  absolute  cer- 
tainty— without  any  fear  of  doubt  whatever.  He  must 
believe  that  every  single  dogma  defined  by  the  Church  and 
proposed  for  his  belief  is  contained  in  Scripture  and  tradi- 
tion, although  he  does  not  see  it  therein.  On  the  other  hand, 
his  rational  instinct  is  uneasy  and  dissatisfied;  he  would 
willingly  enquire  into  the  logical  grounds  of  his  belief,  but 
he  is  afraid  of  yielding  to  the  suggestions  of  doubt  which  are 
forbidden  to  him  under  pain  of  eternal  damnation.  Yes,  he 
might  lose  his  faith,  and  how  then  could  he  be  saved  ?  This 
terror  prevents  him  from  pursuing  the  truth  and  nothing  but 
the  truth,  let  the  consequences  be  what  they  may.  He 
throws  himself  on  the  bosom  of  a  Church  which  informs  him 
that  he  can  and  must  believe  in  her  with  an  absolute  cer- 
tainty, because  she  is  infallible.  He  becomes  her  vassal,  and 
imagines  that  he  has  found  rest ;  and  if  there  his  logical 
instincts  could  be  silenced,  he  would  slumber  on  quietly  to 
the  end  of  his  days.  Many,  no  doubt,  have  succeeded  in  con- 
tracting their  views  and  mental  aspirations  within  the  hori- 
zon of  the  Church — content  to  be  always  in  spiritual  swad- 
dling-clothes  and    intellectual    leading-strings.     But  it   is 


Theory  and  Fact,  325 

unnatural  tlius  to  subdue  the  inquisitive  nature  of  a  think- 
ing and  rational  being.  He  feels  uneasy  on  the  couch  of 
Church-infallibility.  He  knows  that  there  is  something 
wanting  to  complete  the  logical  genesis  of  his  faith ;  that 
there  must  be  something  above  and  beyond  the  authority  of 
the  Church  to  invest  his  faith  with  absolute  certainty  and 
to  dispel  every  apprehension  of  doubt.  On  what  is  this 
authority  logically  based  ?  On  what  else  does  he  base  it,  on 
what  else  can  he  base  it  but  on  the  historical  evidence  of 
Christianity  itself  1  This  evidence,  however,  gives  him  only 
a  moral  or  historical  certainty.  Where,  then,  is  the  logical 
foundation  of  absolute  certainty  for  his  act  of  faith  %  It  is 
this  discrepancy  between  the  premisses  and  conclusion  in  the 
effort  to  explain  the  logical  origin  of  absolute  certainty  in  the 
act  of  faith,  which  renders  the  Roman  Catholic  believer 
restless  and  dissatisfied  and  causes  him  to  shrink  from  any 
searching  enquiry.  There  is  a  something  in  the  conclu- 
sion for  which  the  premisses  do  not  account. 

No  wonder  then  that  Dr.  Newman  should  feel  the  diffi- 
culty of  an  act  of  faith.  Has  he  obtained  more  certainty  in 
the  Church  of  Rome  than  he  possessed  before  he  joined  it  ? 
Logically,  it  is  impossible  that  he  could. 

It  Ls  on  account  of  this  difficulty,  he  thinks,  that  the 
Church  "  has  ever  shown  the  utmost  care  to  contract,  as 
far  as  possible,  the  range  of  truths  and  the  sense  of  proposi- 
tions, of  which  she  demands  this  absolute  reception."  History 
does  not  confirm  this  assertion.  On  the  contrary,  we  find 
that  Rome  from  age  to  age  has  continually  developed  and 
added  new  dogmas  of  faith  to  the  already  existing  ones. 
Compare  the  creed  of  Pius  TV.  with  the  ancient  confessions 
of  faith,  and  you  will  be  convinced  of  this  truth.  She  has 
always  been  prolific  in  dogmatic  development.     How  oi'teix 


S26  ttoinan  Catholicism, 

has  the  circle  of  open  questions  been  contracted  by  new 
dogmatic  definitions  !  Instead  of  contracting,  the  Church  of 
Kome  enlarged  the  cii'cle  of  articles  of  faith,  even  when  it  was 
not  necessary  to  do  so.  What  necessity  was  there  for  the 
dogma  of  the  immaculate  conception  ?  What  urgent  need 
demanded  the  definition  of  papal  infallibility,  since  the 
Church  had  done  well  without  it  for  eighteen  hundred  years  % 
Does  this  show  a  desire,  on  the  part  of  the  Church,  "  to 
contract  the  range"  of  articles  of  faith  ? 

And  since  the  popes  were  the  principal  cause  of  multi- 
plying dogmatic  definitions  and  decrees  before  1870,  what 
guarantee  have  we  that,  in  the  future,  they  will  take  into 
consideration  the  "  difficulty"  of  the  virtue  of  faith,  and 
speak  less  frequently  ex  cathedra  %  None  whatever.  Formerly 
generations,  even  centuries  passed  away,  in  which  the  pon- 
tifis  issued  no  dogmatic  bull  or  encyclical.  But  can  you 
imagine  that,  in  the  time  to  come,  there  will  be  a  single  pope 
who  will  not  more  than  once,  during  his  pontificate,  speak 
ex  cathedra,  if  for  no  other  purpose,  than  to  enjoy  the  sweet 
exercise  of  his  authority,  and  to  remind  the  world  that  he  is 
endowed  with  the  gift  of  infallibility  ?  Moreover,  as  in  the 
very  nature  of  things  there. will  constantly  arise  new  doubts 
and  difficulties  within  the  Church,  will  it  not  be  necessary 
for  this  permanent  living  oracle  to  be  uninterruptedly 
engaged  in  solving  and  subduing  them  by  his  authoritative 
voice  %  Besides,  can  we  suppose  that  there  will  be  no  popes 
who,  "  intoxicated  with  their  solitary  greatness,"  will  not  be 
vain  enough  to  render  their  pontificate  memorable  by  some 
great  dogmatic  event  % 

The  remark,  therefore,  of  Dr.  Newman,  that  the  Church 
has  always  shown  the  strongest  desire  to  contract  the  range 
of  the  de  fide  propositions  is  not  only  without  foundation  in 


Theory  mid  Fact,  827 

history,  but  is  also  illusory  as  a  basis  of  hope  that  the  papacy 
will  pursue  a  cautious  policy  hereafter.  Yet,  he  grounds  his 
justification  of  the  minimizing  process  of  the  theologians 
upon  this  "  difficulty  of  the  act  of  faith,"  and  on  the  con- 
sequent frugality  in  definition  on  the  part  of  the  Church. 
He  says  :  "  She  only  speaks  when  it  is  necessary  to  speak  \ 
but  hardly  has  she  declared  magisterially  some  general  prin- 
ciple, when  she  sets  her  theologians  to  work  to  explain  her 
meaning  in  the  concrete,  by  strict  interpretation  of  its  word- 
ing, by  the  illustration  of  its  circumstances,  and  by  the  re- 
cognition of  exceptions,  in  order  to  make  it  as  tolerable  as 
possible,  and  as  little  as  possible  a  temptation  to  self-willed, 
independent,  or  wrongly-educated  minds."  And  both  here 
and  at  the  end  of  this  section  of  his  pamphlet  he  pleads  very 
hard  for  "a  wise  and  gentle  minimism." 

We  cannot  help  loving  the  gentle  and  charitable  dis- 
position of  Dr.  Newman,  or  feeling  deeply  for  him  ;  for  his 
is  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  not  of  Kome.  The  house  has 
been  set  on  fire  by  the  pope  and  his  advisers,  but  is  it  pro- 
bable that  men  like  Dr.  Newman  will  be  able  to  extinguish 
the  flames  by  their  "  wise  and  gentle  minimism  V  And  even 
if  they  succeeded  now,  is  it  not  certain  that  future  popes 
would  again  and  again  apply  the  incendiary  torch  to  the 
edifice  of  the  Church  in  many  an  ill-considered  bull  ?  Is  not 
this  minimism  a  faint  exercise  of  mental  liberty  ?  Rome  looks 
with  suspicion  on  any  symptoms  of  such  liberty,  since  they 
may  be  the  beginnings  of  rebellion.  Minimism  is  not  in 
favour  with  the  popes,  for  it  has  always  been  their  aim 
to  have  their  authority  maximized.  The  maximising,  not 
the  minimizing,  theologians  are  successful  in  their  career,  so 
far  as  honour  and  preferment  in  the  Church  are  concerned. 

Dr.  Newman  seems  to  hope  xor  much  from  the  labours 


328  Roman  Catholicism* 

of  the  scholce  theologorum,  as  if  they  could  lighten  the 
burden  of  faith  with  which  the  popes  afflict  the  Church  or 
save  the  little  spark  of  mental  liberty  which  their  absolut- 
ism threatens  to  extinguish  altogether.  Vain  hope  !  The 
opinions  of  these  scholce,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  papal 
system,  have  no  authoritative  value ;  for  all  authority  resides 
henceforth  in  the  pope  alone.  Opinions  which  prevail 
to-day  may  be  denounced  to-morrow  at  the  Jlat  of  the  Vatican. 
Convictions  that  may  be  the  result  of  the  laborious  and  pro- 
found studies  of  a  life-time,  may  be  anathematised  with  a 
suddenness  that  surpasses  expectation,  and  men  may  be 
compelled,  on  pain  of  excommunication,  to  subscribe  to  doc- 
trines which  they  formerly  were  permitted  strenuously  to 
oppose.  However  valuable,  therefore,  the  opinions  of  the 
scholce  may  have  been  in  former  times,  they  are  valueless 
now  that  the  Vatican  decree  has  become  the  corner-stone  of 
the  Church.  Besides,  if  the  gift  of  infallibility  has  been 
bestowed  upon  the  popes  to  enlighten  the  world  in  an  acces- 
sible and  absolutely  certain  way,  why  should  there  be  any 
necessity  of  interposing  the  scholce  between  the  people  and 
the  papal  utterances  1  Will  the  plain  common  sense  of  men 
be  benefited  by  the  "  scrutinizing  vigilance,  acuteness,  or 
subtlety  of  the  scholce  theologorum .?"  The  theologians  are 
unintelligible,  save  to  the  initiated,  for  they  have  a  method, 
a  style,  and  a  phraseology  of  their  own.  None  but  theolo- 
gians are  able  to  understand  theologians.  Does  not  all  this 
tend  to  keep  the  people  in  darkness  and  ignorance  1 

Indeed,  we  believe  that,  in  the  future,  there  will  be  a 
dearth  of  really  profound  theologians  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 
Since  the  Vatican  definition  theology  has  ceased  to  be  a 
science.  "  Papal  infallibility  becomes  not  only  a  soft  cushion 
on  which  the  wearied  or  perplexed  mind,  as  well  of  the 


Theory  and  Fact  S29 

layman  as  of  the  theologian,  may  repose  softly,  and  abandon 
itself  to  undisturbed  slumber,  but  it  supplies  to  the  intel- 
lectual world  in  religious  matters  what  our  steam  convey- 
ances and  electrical  wires  supply  to  the  material  world  in 
the  saving  of  time  and  labour."  (The  Pope  and  the  Council^ 
p.  XXV.)  Undoubtedly,  this  dogma  must  cripple  all  intel- 
lectual movement  and  scientific  activity  among  Roman 
Catholic  theologians. 


LECTUEE    X. 

THE    VATICAN  DEOREE    CHANGES  THE  RELATION  OF 
THE  PAPACY  TO  THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  STATE. 

AFTER  the  preliminary  remarks  which  we  reviewed  in 
our  last  lecture,  Dr.  Newman  proceeds  to  minimize 
the  Vatican  definition.  If  we  mistake  not,  his  aim  is  to 
show  that  it  is  not  such  a  formidable  thing  as  others  suppose 
it  to  be  ;  that  it  neither  introduces  a  new  constitution,  nor 
contracts  the  scope  of  legitimate  enquiry,  nor  deprives  E-oman 
Catholic  churchmen  of  their  mental  liberty. 

It  is  maintained  that  nothing  is  changed  in  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Church;  for  the  definition  declares  that  ^^  the 
pope  has  the  same  infallibility  which  the  Church  has" 

We  answer  that  much  is  changed  by  this  very  assertion 
of  the  bull  Pastor  Mternus.  First,  infallibility  is  claimed  as 
before,  but  it  is  difierently  lodged,  being  transferred  from  the 
Church  to  the  pope.  Prior  to  1870,  neither  the  episcopate 
alone,  nor  the  pope  alone,  was  considered  infallible,  but  both 
together.  Now  the  pope's  definitions  in  themselves,  without 
the  consent  of  the  Church,  are  irreformable  and  must  be 
received  with  an  absolute  and  unwavering  faith.  The  old 
Catholic  rule  of  faith,  enunciated  by  Vincentius  Lirinensis, 
has  virtually  been  abandoned,  and  papal  dictation  put  in  its 
place.  The  Church  is  a  body,  and  the  pope  is  now  to  be 
believed  to  be,  the  moving  soul  oi  that  body. 


Relation  of  Papacy  to  Church  and  State.       331 

Who  can  fail  to  perceive  tliat  this  definition  transferred 
the  highest  power  from  a  collective  body  to  an  individual  % 
It  ceases  to  be  the  same  power.  That  which  may,  let  us  say 
for  argument's  sake,  be  safely  committed  to  the  whole 
Church,  and  the  exercise  of  which  is  guarded  by  the  inevitable 
conditions  of  action  in  a  collective  body,  becomes  an  utterly 
difierent  thing  when  in  the  custody  of  a  single  person.  Is 
it  the  same  thing  in  civil  authority  whether  the  supreme 
power  is  held  to  reside  in  a  nation  or  in  an  absolute  monarch  % 
Is  there  no  change  when  it  is  declared  that  henceforth  all 
power  shall  reside  in  an  autocrat  % 

All  the  former  bulwarks  provided  in  the  definitions  of  the 
Church  are  swept  away.  The  energy  of  conscience,  the 
power  of  immutable  Scripture,  the  guiding  light  of  past 
history,  the  elimination  of  individual  interests  and  errors, 
the  correction  of  one  set  of  views  by  another — all  are  gone. 
It  is  absurd  to  say  that  an  individual  prelate  can  or  will  con- 
centrate these  indispensable  factors  in  himself. 

Will  any  one  venture  to  maintain  that  the  head  of  the 
Church,  since  the  Vatican  council,  stands  on  the  same  foot- 
ing in  regard  to  princes  and  states  ?  He  has  taken  the  place 
of  the  Church  in  regard  to  them.  However  inconvenient 
and  troublesome  the  Church's  power  may  have  been  at  times, 
still  it  was  not  impossible  to  adjust  difierences  by  compromise 
and  to  manage  national  Churches  in  a  national  spirit.  In 
future  it  will  become  more  and  more  difficult  to  do  so.  Every 
Church,  and  consequently  every  government,  is  directly  and 
immediately  subject  to  the  interference  of  a  foreign  spiritual 
potentate  who  claims  infallibility.  How  can  governments 
make  treaties  with  him,  since  they  do  not  stand  on  a  footing 
of  equality  with  him  1  How  can  a  government  negotiate 
with  a  sovereign  who  claims  ini'allibility  and  demands  abso- 
late  obedience  ■$ 


332  Roman  Catholicism, 

The  assertion  of  the  pope's  infallibility,  therefore,  by  the 
Vatican  decrees,,  does  make  a  serious  change  in  the  relations 
of  Church  and  State.  It  places  the  pope  in  a  different  aspect 
towards  the  world.  It  places  him  in  an  altered  attitude  to  all 
councils  whatsoever",  whether  national  or  general.  It  effects 
this  just  as  completely  as  the  rise  of  the  Koman  emperors 
changed  the  power  of  the  Eoman  senate.  It  is  so  regarded 
by  the  world  in  general ',  it  must  be  felt  to  be  so  by  the 
pontiffs  themselves. 

The  phrase,  then,  of  the  Vatican  decree,  that  "  the  pope 
has  that  same  infallibility  which  the  Church  has,"  has  intro- 
duced an  entirely  new  constitution.  It  means  that  the  pope 
is  the  Church — la  Ghiesa  sono  io. 

And  as  Roman  Catholics  themselves  do  not  pretend  to 
maintain  that  the  elevation  of  the  pope  to  his  exalted  dignity 
changes  his  human  nature,  it  is  evident  that  his  dogmatic  de- 
finitions and  decrees  will  greatly  depend  on  his  personal  cha- 
racter. Does  not  the  history  of  the  papacy  prove  this  fact 
beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  ?  "We  cannot  help  perceiving 
that  the  personal  character  of  each  pope  is  stamped  upon  the 
letters  and  bulls  which  he  issued.  If  we  had  no  other  means 
for  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  his  character,  these  productions 
would  be  a  sufS.cient  key  to  disclose  it  to  our  view.  Any 
student  ofhistorymay  easily  form  an  estimate  of  the  charac- 
ters of  Hildebrand,  Alexander  III.,  Innocent  III.,  Boniface 
VIII.,  and  others  from  the  official  documents  they  issued. 
Their  previous  training  and  prejudices  appear  between  the 
lines.  If,  for  instance,  they  were  monks,  we  may  easily  dis- 
cover by  the  study  of  their  writings  to  what  order  of  monks 
they  belonged,  and  by  what  monkish  superstitions  they  were 
swayed. 

But  we  need  not  go  to  past  history  in  order  to  verify  our 


Relation  of  Papacy  to  Church  and  State.       333 

remark.  The  long  pontificate  of  Pius  IX.  amply  proves  how 
his  personal  character  influences  all  his  speeches,  letters, 
encyclicals,  and  bulls.  Pius  is  anxious  to  maintain  his 
temporal  dominion ;  hence  the  many  documents  bearing  on 
this  subject.  He  is  permeated  with  an  extraordinary  de- 
votion to  the  Virgin  Mary ;  from  her  he  expects  succour  in 
his  troubles ;  hence  his  dogmatic  decree  of  the  Immaculate 
Conception.  He  is  superstitious  to  a  high  degree  ;  hence  the 
winking  madonnas,  the  multiplication  of  sacred  shi'ines,  the 
numerous  pilgrimages,  the  miraculous  relics  and  images,  and 
the  indulgences  which  he  grants  for  idle  and  superstitious 
observances.  He  thinks  a  great  deal  of  the  piety  of  the 
middle  ages,  for  he  characterizes  them  as  the  Ages  of  Faith  ; 
his  thoughts  live  and  dwell  in  those  ages  and  he  longs  to  have 
the  powers  restored  which  the  popes  then  enjoyed  j  hence 
the  syllabus  with  its  corresponding  encyclicals  and  bulls, 
which  brought  to  light  again  the  "  rusty  armour  of  the 
middle  ages."  He  is  an  extreme  Ultramontane,  and  per- 
sonally believes  in  papal  infallibility  ;  hence  the  Vatican 
Decrees  in  which  he  imposed  his  rigid  faith  upon  the  whole 
world. 

The  personal  character  of  the  popes,  henceforth  to  form  an 
important  element  in  shaping  the  creed  of  the  Church  of 
Pome,  will  be  influenced  to  a  considerable  iextent  by  the  imme- 
diate surroundings  of  the  papal  chair.  The  pope,  in  issuing 
dogmatic  decrees,  will  be  guided  by  his  counsellors.  Are 
these  to  be  trusted  ?  Their  choice  depends  on  his  personal 
predilections,  and  they  may  be  retained  or  dismissed  accord- 
ing to  his  capricious  whims.  Well-meaning  Roman  Catho- 
lics confess  that  there  is  a  vast  amount  of  intellectual  and 
moral  malaria  in  the  atmosphere  of  the  Vatican.  And  can 
we  suppose  that  this  noxious  vapour  will  not  insinuate  it- 
self into  the  judgment  of  the  pope  ? 


334  Roman  Catholicism. 

Yet  since  Cliurcli  infallibility  has  been  merged  into  papal 
infallibility,  everything  in  faith  and  morals  must  emanate 
from  this  centre.  Henceforth  the  whole  Church  will  be- 
come Italianized.  Attachments  to  national  usage  will  be  in 
bad  odour  at  Rome ;  Saxon  sincerity,  uprightness,  and  inde- 
paiidence  will  be  looked  upon  with  suspicion  ;  Oriental  rites 
and  discipline  will  be  interfered  with  as  savouring  of  the  in- 
dependence of  schismatic  times  gone  by.  Conformity  to 
Italian  observances  will  be  introduced  wherever  practicable ; 
Italian  casuistry  will  become  the  moral  standard  of  the 
whole  Church ;  and  deceit  and  untruthfulness  will  be  en- 
grafted on  the  character  of  other  nations. 

As  Daniel  O'Connell  bequeathed  his  heart  to  Rome  and 
his  body  to  his  native  land  ;  so  the  heart  of  every  staunch 
Roman  Catholic  belongs  to  a  foreign  potentate,  whilst  he  may 
give  the  life-service  of  his  worthless  body  to  the  country 
which  he  calls  his  own.  I  cannot  see  how  genuine  Christian 
patriotism  can  dwell  in  the  breast  of  one  whose  heart  beats 
supremely  for  Rome.  The  sincere  Roman  Catholic  must  ad- 
mit a  twofold  loyalty — loyalty  to  Rome,  loyalty  to  his  own 
country — and  to  which  of  these  two  will  he  be  likely  to  give 
the  preference,  whenever  they  come  into  conflict  %  Surely, 
loyalty  to  the  pope  he  is  obliged  to  believe  in  as  supreme, 
must  and  will  prevail ;  for  the  pope  is  his  Church  and  the 
Church  stands  in  the  stead  of  Christ.  Whoever  will  not 
hear  the  Church,  i.e.  the  pope,  let  him  be  as  a  heathen  man 
and  a  publican.  He  must  obey  God,  i.e.  the  pope,  rather 
than  man. 

Such,  then,  is  the  spirit  of  modern  Roman  Catholicism. 
The  substitution  of  papal  infallibility  for  Church  infallibilty 
— what  else  is  the  Vatican  definition  % — has  indeed  changed 
considerably  the  civil  atatus  of  Roman  Catholic  citizens.    Dp 


Relation  of  Papacy  to  Church  and  State.       335 

they  deny  that  the  pope  is  a  foreign  spiritual  monarch  %  Do 
they  deny  that  they  are  in  conscience  bound  to  obey  him 
unreservedly,  and  to  believe,  with  an  absolute  certainty,  his 
decrees  in  faith  and  morals  %  Who  can  authoritatively  define 
the  domain  of  his  power  and  prerogatives  but  the  pope  him- 
self %  Do  not  all  the  questions  of  faith  and  morals  include 
the  whole  of  life,  all  the  relations  of  man  to  God  and  to 
society  %  Does  not  the  pope's  supreme  authority  include  an 
universal  guardianship  over  the  legislature,  the  laws,  and 
government  of  every  country  %  No  staunch  and  intelligent 
Roman  Catholic  will  venture  to  limit  these  questions,  or  to 
give  them  a  negative  answer.  The  minimizing  of  Dr.  New- 
man and  others  will  not  avail  here,  for  it  is  not  practical. 
It  is  too  subtle  and  ethereal  for  the  Roman  Catholic  public, 
and  it  is  in  disfavor  with  Rome.  When  the  pope  speaks  he 
means  to  be  obeyed,  and  that  under  pain  of  the  severest  cen- 
sures. The  paragraph  on  the  authority  of  the  conscience  in 
Dr.  Newman's  pamphlet  is  sublime  music  to  Protestant  ears, 
although  it  sounds  strange  to  term  the  conscience  the  true 
Vicar  of  Christ.  The  pope  will  scarcely  approve  of  such  lan- 
guage. He  will  tell  Dr.  Newman  that  there  is  such  a  thing 
as  an  erroneous  conscience  which  requires  to  be  corrected ; 
that  the  conscience  must  be  informed  by  the  truth  ;  that  he, 
the  pope,  is  the  infallible  source  of  all  moral  and  religious 
truth  in  the  Church,  and  that  therefore  the  conscience  must 
be  modeled  after  papal  definitions  and  decisions.  Dr.  New- 
man's reasoning  is  only  applicable  to  solitary  cases  here  and 
there.  The  general  Roman  Catholic  public  forms  practical 
judgments  for  the  guidance  of  its  conscience  from  the  plain 
and  obvious  wording  of  papal  encyclicals.  Most  of  the 
members  know  nothing  of  the  "acuteness  of  the  scholm 
VieoloyoTurriy'   for  it  is  beyond   their  mental  reach.      This 


336  Roman  Catholicism. 

minimizing  process  in  matters  where  papal  decrees  conflict 
with  the  laws  and  orders  of  the  State  appears  to  me,  on  the 
part  of  some,  like  the  despairing  cry  of  a  patriotic  heart ;  and, 
on  the  part  of  others,  like  the  cunning  act  of  throwing  fine 
dust  into  the  adversary's  eyes,  as  a  method  of  defence.  But 
it  is  of  no  avail  in  either  case.  The  pope,  although  he  may 
approve  of  the  latter  proceeding,  where  policy  and  prudence 
demand  it,  will  severely  censure  and  condemn  the  conscien- 
tious wail  of  patriotism  in  anguish. 

There  is  no  need  of  going  back  to  past  history ;  do  we  not 
daily  witness  the  pope's  interference  in  the  administration  of 
civil  governments,  and  the  constant  conflict  between  papal 
decrees  and  civil  lawsl  What  else  is  the  bull  In  Goena 
Domini, .  the  Syllabus,  with  its  corresponding  authoritative 
documents,  and  other  equally  notorious  bulls  and  encyclicals, 
but  so  many  missiles  from  the  Vatican  hurled  into  the  legiti- 
mate domain  of  the  State  1 

The  contest  between  the  papacy  and  the  empire  is  raging 
fiercely  in  Germany,  and  why?  Is  it  because  the  State 
tramples  under  foot  the  laws  of  God  and  the  rights  of  man  % 
No ;  but  because  it  disregards  the  arbitrary  enactments  of  the 
pope ;  because  it  demands  freedom  of  action  in  its  own  pro- 
per sphere,  untrammelled  by  the  interference  of  any  foreign 
potentate ;  because  it  wishes  to  remove  all  occasion  of  dis- 
loyalty in  any  class  whatever  of  its  subjects ;  because  it 
desires  to  give  fair  play  and  mete  out  equal  justice  to  every 
citizen ;  because  it  demands  the  same  liberty  which,  strange 
to  say,  the  pope  has  granted  to  other  governments.  In  point 
of  fact  the  German  empire  concedes  to  its  Roman  Catholic 
subjects  liberties  and  privileges  which  are  denied  them  in 
other  countries.  Whence,  then,  that  fierce  struggle?  The 
secret  of  the  whole  contest  is  thai;  the  Ultramontanes  of  Ger- 


Relation  of  Papacy  to  Church  and  State.       337 

many  look  back  to  the  flesh-pots  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and 
cannot  brook  the  idea  of  a  Protestant  Kaiser  at  the  head  of 
the  German  empire.  They  are  unable  to  dissociate  in  their 
mind  the  idea  of  Emperor  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  from 
the  imperial  dignity  of  Germany.  In  that  empire  the  pope 
ruled  supreme ;  but  now  the  hated  heretic  is  invested  with 
the  imperial  purple.     Hinc  illce  lachrymce. 

Let  us  pass  over  to  other  countries.  Scarcely  one  remains 
undisturbed  by  papal  interference.  The  pope  fulminates 
excommunications  without  number  against  the  Italians; 
first,  because  they  exercised  their  right  of  choosing  their  own 
form  of  government,  and  yielded  to  their  patriotic  aspii-ations 
on  behalf  of  national  unity  and  freedom  from  clerical  mis- 
government  and  vassalage  ;  and  afterwards,  principally  be- 
cause they  disbanded  that  formidable  army  of  the  pope  and 
inciters  of  rebellion,  I  mean  the  numerous  religious  orders, 
those  pest-houses  of  laziness  and  nurseries  of  superstition, 
confiscated  their  immense  wealth,  and  converted  it  to  national 
purposes.  Now.  why  were  the  Vatican  thunders  more  for- 
midable when  launched  against  Italy  than  in  similar  cases  ? 
When,  for  instance,  the  French  drove  Louis  Philippe  from 
his  throne  and  established  a  republic,  the  pope  blessed  them 
and  accepted  the  aid  of  their  armies.  When  Louis  Napoleon 
founded  his  throne  on  the  ruins  of  the  republic,  the  pope 
was  his  friend  and  called  him  the  Eldest  Son  of  the  Church. 
Whence,  then,  his  wrath  when  the  Italians  founded  their 
kingdom  %  Because  the  papal  states  were  absorbed.  And 
had  the  inhabitants  of  these  states  no  rights  like  other 
nations'?  Could  they  not  change  their  government  when 
they  thought  that  a  change  would  better  their  condition  ] 
The  pope  says  No;  and  why"?  Because,  forsooth,  they  are 
the  properly  of  the  Chui-ch,  the  patrimony  of  St.  Peter.  Vv^e 
22 


338  Roman  Catholicism. 

do  not  blame  the  pope  for  endeavouring  to  keep  his  kingdom; 
but  let  him  do  so  by  lawful  temporal  means.  He  has  no 
right  to  use  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical  weapons  to  secure 
earthly  sovereignty ;  remembering  that  his  kingdom  is  not  of 
this  world.  His  subjects  stand  to  him  in  the  same  relation- 
ship as  other  peoples  towards  their  sovereigns,  and  in  no 
other.  And  as  he  does  not  venture  to  employ  against  others 
the  severest  weapons  in  the  hands  of  the  Church  for  changing 
their  political  and  civil  relations,  why  should  he  use  them 
against  his  own  subjects,  when  they  prefer  contributing  their 
share  to  the  unification  of  Italy  and  the  welfare  of  their 
common  country  %  Why  does  he  deem  it  his  duty  to  employ 
his  ecclesiastical  censures  only  in  favour  of  himself,  and  not 
also  in  behalf  of  other  dethroned  sovereigns  % 

The  fact  is,  the  temporalities  of  the  Church  constitute  one 
of  the  principal  objects  of  care  and  solicitude  to  the  pope  and 
his  hierarchy.  This  cii'cumstance  must  be  born  in  mind  in 
order  to  understand  fully  the  interference  of  the  infallible 
papacy  in  secular  governments.  None  will  deny  that  the 
Church  of  Kome  possesses,  to  an  astonishing  degree,  the  faculty 
of  amassing  property  and  wealthy  and  the  more  she  amasses 
the  more  she  craves.  It  is  on  the  score  of  the  temporalities 
of  the  Church  more  than  on  any  other,  that  the  State  and 
the  papacy  will  clash.  There  is  a  mixed  domain.  The  pope  and 
his  bishops  claim  independent,  exclusive,  and  absolute  control 
over  all,  without  interference  on  the  part  of  the  laity,  while  the 
State,  in  the  interest  of  the  whole  country,  refuses  to  permit 
the  accumulation  of  Church  property  beyond  a  certain  limit, 
nor  permit  its  use  for  any  purposes  other  than  those  which 
either  directly  or  indirectly  tend  to  the  advancement  of  the 
people.  Therefore  the  State  demands  an  account  of  the 
manner  in  which  the  temporalities  are  employed,  so  as  to 


Relation  of  Papacy  to  Church  and  State.       339 

secure  their  legitimate  use.  Hence  the  thunders  of  the 
Vatican  are  let  loose  against  those  unfortunate  governments 
•which  dare  to  interfere  with  the  temporalities  of  the  Church. 

We  know  of  no  other  government  that  would  have  shown 
greater  moderation  in  dealing  with  the  pope  than  the  Italian. 
The  ^^ Statute  of  Guarantees''^  in  which  provision  is  made  for 
the  free  action,  security,  and  independence  of  the  pope,  dis- 
plays lavish  generosity.  Moreover,  the  government,  desirous 
of  establishing  "  a  free  Church  in  a  free  State,"  gave  up  all 
the  ecclesiastical  rights  which  it  formerly  possessed,  reserving 
to  itself  only  a  certain  amount  of  control  over  the  temporali- 
ties of  the  Church.  Yet  the  pope  is  implacable,  he  has 
nothing  but  censures  against  the  government,  its  abettors 
and  adherents. 

I  shall  not  speak  further  of  the  constant  interference  of 
the  pope  in  the  government  and  laws  of  other  countries. 
Everywhere  you  find  him  complaining  of  the  violation  of  his 
rights.  And  what  rights  are  they  %  Are  they  inherent  in 
Christianity  %  By  no  means.  They  are  rights  established 
by  himself,  emanating  from  priestly  ambition  and  pride, 
such  as  complete  exemption  of  the  priesthood  from  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  tribunals  of  the  land,  exemption  from 
taxation,  the  exclusion  of  the  laity  from  the  administration 
of  Church-temporalities,  exclusive  control  in  all  matters  per- 
taining to  education,  &c.,  &c.  These  quasi  rights  vary  con- 
siderably in  diflferent  countries.  Thus  in  purely  Koman 
Catholic  countries  the  pope  claims  the  right  of  persecuting 
the  Protestants,  while  in  Protestant  countries  he  clamours 
for  religious  liberty.  As  he  has  been  in  the  past,  so  he  will 
be  in  the  future,  in  constant  embroglio  with  every  govern- 
ment in  the  world  where  he  has  a  considerable  number  of 
faithful  adherents. 


340  Roman  Catholicism. 

And  can  it  possibly  be  supposed  that  the  pope's  voice  will 
have  no  influence  upon  their  loyalty  and  general  conduct  % 
Since  the  Vatican  council,  the  pope's  voice  is  the  Church's 
voice.  There  is  consequently  no  alternative  for  Roman 
Catholic  sujects  but  to  obey  their  infallible  chief.  It  would 
be  preposterous  to  maintain  that  the  Vatican  decree  effects 
no  change  in  the  status  of  Koman  Catholics. 

But  this  transfer  of  infallibility  from  the  Church  to  the 
pope,  or  the  complete  identification  of  Church  and  papacy, 
produces  its  greatest  change  in  the  standing  of  the  episcopate. 
Formerly,  the  gift  of  infallibility  was  believed  to  reside  in 
the  episcopal  body,  but  now  the  "  ex  cathedra  definitions  of 
the  Roman  pontiff  are  irreformable  of  themselves,  and  not 
from  the  consent  of  the  Church."  Formerly,  the  bishops  were 
believed  to  have  a  jurisdiction  of  their  own  in  their  diocese, 
but  now  the  pope  "enjoys  ordinary  and  immediate  power  both 
over  each  and  all  Churches,  and  over  each  and  all  the  pastors 
and  the  faithful."  Each  bishop,  therefore,  is  a  mere  creature 
of  the  pope,  depending  altogether  on  his  will ;  the  pope  may 
interfere  in  the  administration  of  his  see  whenever  he  pleases 
and  as  he  pleases;  nothing  can  protect  the  bishop  from  the 
ill-will  of  the  Roman  curia,  or  the  intrigues  of  the  pope's 
favourites.  His  influence  and  vote  in  the  councils  of  the 
Church  amount  to  zero.  His  manhood  and  freedom  have 
departed  forever  j  he  is  nothing  but  a  serf  of  the  great  pope 
of  Rome.  It  is  only  necessary  to  flatter  the  slave  and  give 
him  power  over  his  fellow-slaves,  and  he  will  be  a  hard  master 
indeed.  Despotism  in  the  head  begets  despotism  in  the 
officers. 

We  pity  the  poor  people  who,  without  knowing  it  and 
without  even  as  yet  feeling  it,  have  thus  changed  the  Church 
for  the  pope.     Without  doubt  this  despotic  system  has  great 


Relation  of  Papacy  to  Church  and  State,       341 

vitality,  and  will  probably  continue  to  trouble  the  world  for 
generations  and  ages  to  come.  And  why  %  Because  these 
slaves  are  willing  slaves.  They  are  well  cared  for,  and  fed 
with  a  certain  kind  of  spiritual  food  that  satisfies  them ;  and 
therefore  they  become  attached  to  their  masters.  Their 
spii'itual  life  is  devoid  of  uneasiness  and  trouble.  They  be- 
lieve the  food  they  receive  to  be  good ;  they  do  not  care 
whence  it  comes,  whether  from  the  Bible,  or  tradition,  or 
the  Church,  or  the  pope.  We  do  not  deny  that  Eome  has  a 
system  of  doctrine  still  fruitful  (with  all  its  drawbacks)  in 
instruction,  consolation,  and  inward  renewal.  And  as  long 
as  the  priests  are  faithful  in  feeding  the  people  with  this 
doctrine,  Rome  will  continue  to  be  a  power  in  the  world. 

But  there  is  every  probability  that,  in  the  succession  of 
popes,  this  deposit  of  doctrines  will  grow  more  and  more  cor- 
rupt, so  that  finally  it  will  be  difficult  to  detect  in  it  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity.  And  we  do  not  see 
how,  since  the  Vatican  council,  the  head  of  the  Church  could 
be  reformed,  if  it  should  again  become  as  corrupt  as  in  the 
middle  ages,  specially  during  the  long  schism  of  anti-popes. 
Would  a  council  like  that  of  Constance  be  able  to  remedy  the 
evil  %  No  ;  such  a  council  would  be  altogether  contrary  to 
the  Vatican  system.  The  Church  has  no  power  to  rescue  the 
papacy  from  the  perdition  brought  about  by  its  own  corrup- 
tion. 


LECTUEE   XI. 

REVIEW  OF  THE  RESTRICTIONS  OF  PAPAL  INFALLI- 
BILITY. 

LET  us  briefly  review  some  other  remarks  of  Dr.  New- 
man. Comparing  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  and 
the  pope,  he  says  :  "As  by  the  teaching  of  the  Church  is 
understood,  not  the  teaching  of  this  or  that  bishop,  but  their 
united  voice,  and  a  council  is  the  form  the  Church  must  take 
in  order  that  all  men  may  recognize  what  in  fact  she  is 
teaching  on  any  point  in  dispute,  so  in  like  manner,  the 
pope  must  come  before  us  in  some  special  form  or  posture,  if 
he  is  to  be  understood  to  be  exercising  his  teaching  office, 
and  that  form  is  called  ex  cathedra" 

We  remark,  first,  that  in  the  Roman  system  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  Church  is  not  confined  to  a  council ;  not  only 
the  ecclesia  congregata  in  concilio,  but  also  the  ecclesia 
dispersa  is  infallible ;  and  if  one  can  find  out  the  uni- 
versal consent  of  the  latter  in  regard  to  any  doctrine,  he 
is  bound,  according  to  Roman  Catholic  teaching,  to  hold  it 
as  defide.  If,  therefore,  the  pope's  infallibility  be  the  same 
as  that  of  the  Church,  and  if  the  ex  cathedra  utterances  cor- 
respond to  the  decrees  of  the  council,  he  should  not  only  be 
infallible  when  he  speaks  ex  cathedra,  but  all  his  other  utter- 
ances and  manifestations  touching  the  faith,  made  in  his 
public  capacity,  should  be  believed  as  de  fide^  otherwise  the 


Review  of  Restrictions  of  Papal  Infallibility.  343 

identity  of  his  infallibility  with  that  of  the  Church  is  not 
complete.  This  identity  means  that,  as  the  faith  of  the 
Church,  whether  dispersed  or  assembled  in  council,  should  be 
the  faith  of  its  individual  members,  so  the  pope's  faith, 
whether  uttered  ex  cathedra,  or  ascertained  in  any  other 
manner,  should  henceforth  be  the  faith  of  the  Koman 
Catholics. 

Indeed,  if  the  pope's  infallibility  be  admitted  at  all  as  a 
rule  of  faith,  it  must  be  unconditional  and  unlimited  by  any 
subtle  terms  within  which  theologians  may  desire  to  confine 
it ;  in  a  word,  it  must  be  personal,  like  the  attributes  of  the 
Deity,  otherwise  it  will  be  utterly  worthless  for  the  purpose 
for  which  it  is  said  to  have  been  given.  Whether  they  wish 
it  or  not,  they  cannot  avoid  making  it  a  purely  personal 
attribute.  Their  doctrine  of  investing  only  the  ex  cathedra, 
definitions  with  infallibility  does  not  mend  the  case ;  for  it 
is  left  to  himself  to  say  when  he  speaks  ex  c%thedrd^  and  thus 
it  becomes  a  perpetual  personal  power  lodged  in  the  man 
himself. 

Moreover,  it  requires  to  be  unlimited  in  regard  to  the 
matters  it  defines  and  decrees.  If  they  say  that  it  is  confined 
to  religious  matters,  they  must  also  invest  the  pope  with 
power  to  draw  the  line  between  secular  and  religious  ques 
tions,  and  does  not  such  a  power  make  the  domain  of  in 
fallibility  practically  without  limit  ?  Eoman  Catholic  theo- 
logians waste  their  ingenuity  and  lose  their  time  in  mini- 
mizing the  Vatican  dogma,  and  inventing  limitations  in  order 
to  conceal  or  efiace  its  obnoxious  features.  We  wonder  that 
they  do  not  see  that  their  labour  is  in  vain.  In  spite  of 
their  "wise  and  gentle  minimism,"  the  pope  must  and  will 
claim  and  exercise  a  personal  infallibility,  untrammeled  by 
any  conditions  which  they  may  endeavour  to  impose. 


344  Roman  Catholicism, 

"  The  distinction  between  a  judgment  pronounced  ex 
cathedra,  and  a  merely  occasional  or  casual  utterance  is, 
indeed,  a  perfectly  reasonable  one,  not  only  in  the  case  o^ 
the  pope,  but  of  any  bishop  or  professor.  In  other  words, 
every  one  whose  office  it  is  to  teach  can,  and  will  at  times, 
speak  off-hand  and  loosely  on  dogmatic  and  ethical  questions, 
whereas,  in  his  capacity  of  a  public  and  official  teacher,  he 
pronounces  deliberately,  and  with  serious  regard  to  the  con- 
sequences of  his  teaching.  No  reasonable  man  will  pretend 
that  the  remarks  made  by  a  pope  in  conversation  are  defini- 
tions of  faith.  But  beyond  this  the  distinction  has  no  mean- 
ing. When  a  pope  speaks  publicly  on  a  point  of  doctrine, 
either  of  his  own  accord,  or  in  answer  to  questions  addressed 
to  him,  he  has  spoken  ex  cathedra,  for  he  was  questioned  as 
pope,  and  successor  of  other  popes,  and  the  mere  fact  that  he 
has  made  his  declaration  publicly  and  in  writing  makes  it  an 
ex  cathedra  judgment.  This  holds  good  equally  of  every 
bishop.  The  moment  any  accidental  or  arbitrary  condition 
is  fixed,  on  which  the  ex  cathedra  nature  of  a  papal  decision 
is  to  depend,  we  enter  the  sphere  of  the  private  crotchets  of 
theologians,  such  as  are  wont  to  be  devised,  simply  to  meet 
the  difficulties  of  the  system.  Of  such  notions,  one  is  as 
good  as  another;  they  come  and  go,  and  are  afterwards 
noted  down.  It  is  just  as  if  one  chose  to  say  afterwards  of 
a  physician  who  had  been  consulted,  and  had  given  his 
opinion  on  a  disease,  that  he  had  formed  his  diagnosis  or 
prescribed  his  remedies  as  a  private  person,  and  not  as  a 
physician.  As  soon,  therefore,  as  limitations  are  introduced, 
and  the  dogmatic  judgments  of  the  popes  are  divided  into 
two  classes,  the  ex  cathedra  and  the  personal  ones,  it  is 
obvious  that  the  sole  ground  for  this  arbitrary  distinction  lies 
in.  the  fact  that  there  are  sure  to  be  some  inconvenient  deci- 


Review  of  Restrictions  of  Papal  Infallibility.    345 

sions  of  popes  which  it  is  desirable  to  exempt  from  the  privi- 
leges of  infallibility  generally  asserted  in  other  cases.  Thus, 
for  instance,  Orsi  maintains  that  Honorius  composed  the 
dogmatic  letter  he  issued  in  reply  to  the  Eastern  patriarchs, 
and  which  was  afterwards  condemned  as  heretical  by  the 
sixth  oecumenical  council,  only  as  a  '  private  teacher,'  but  the 
expression  doctor  privatus,  when  used  of  a  pope,  is  like 
talking  of  wooden  iron."  .  {The  Pope  and  the  Council, 
page  328.) 

Eoman  Catholics  are  not  better  off  now  than  they  were 
before  the  Vatican  council.  How  will  they  distinguish 
between  those  definitions  which  are  ex  cathedra,  and  those 
which  are  not?  Dr.  Newman,  continuing  his  comparison 
between  papal  infallibility,  and  the  infallibility  of  the 
Church,  says  :  "  What  is  to  be  that  moral  cathedra,  or  teach- 
ing chair,  in  which  the  pope  sits,  when  he  is  to  be  recognized 
as  in  the  exercise  of  his  infallible  teaching  ?  The  new  defi- 
nition answers  this  question.  He  speaks  ex  cathedra,  or 
infallibly,  when  he  speaks,  first,  as  the  universal  teacher; 
secondly,  in  the  name,  and  with  the  authority  of  the  Apostles; 
thirdly,  on  a  point  of  faith  and  morals ;  fourthly,  with  the 
purpose  of  binding  every  member  of  the  Church  to  accept  and 
believe  his  decision."  And  then  he  proceeds  to  whittle 
down  these  conditions  to  the  finest  point,  so  that  at  last 
nothing  tangible  is  left  of  the  whole  prerogative. 

First,  then,  in  order  to  exercise  his  infallibility,  the  pope 
must  speak  "  as  the  universal  teacher."  But  when  does  he 
speak  in  that  capacity  ]  Dr.  Newman  answers  :  "  when  he 
speaks  to  the  whole  world ;  .  .  .  .  accordingly  orders  which 
issue  from  him  for  the  observance  of  particular  countries,  or 
political  or  religious  classes,  have  no  claim  to  be  the  utter- 
ances of  his  infallibility."  Where,  then,  was  papal  infallibility 


346  Roman  Catholicism. 

before  the  fourteenth  century  %  "  No  single  decree  of  a  pope 
addressed  to  the  whole  Church  is  known  for  the  first  thousand 
years  of  Christian  history,  and  even  after  the  twelfth  and 
thirteenth  centuries  the  popes  usually  decided  at  councils  on 
doctrinal  questions.  Boniface  VIII. 's  hull  UTicvm  Sanctamj 
in  1303,  is  the  first  addressed  to  the  whole  Church."  (The 
Pope  and  the  Council ,  page  331.)  Was  the  gift  of  papal  in- 
fallibility lying  dormant  for  thirteen  centuries  ?  Were  there 
no  controversies  to  be  settled,  no  heresies  to  be  condemned, 
during  that  long  period?  The  popes  must  have  either 
neglected  their  duty,  or  not  have  been  aware  that  they 
possessed  the  prerogative  of  inerrancy,  or  ignorant  of  the 
condition  that  they  must  address  the  whole  Church  in  order 
to  exercise  the  gift.  Surely,  the  infallibilists  will  not  maintain 
that  the  folios  of  papal  writings  before  Boniface  VIII.  do  not 
contain  a  grain  of  infallible  teaching  because  they  were  not 
being  addressed  to  the  universal  Church.  This  condition, 
therefore,  of  the  ex  cathedra  decisions  is  not  a  test  in  regard 
to  the  past. 

The  fact  is,  they  found  a  vast  number  of  papal  writings 
and  utterances  highly  obnoxious  to,  and  subversive  of,  their 
infallibility  system.  They  had  to  get  rid  of  these  at  any  cost. 
Hence  their  invention  of  the  ex-cathedrd  distinction  and  the 
still  further  limitation  of  the  ex-cathedrd  definitions  by  other 
conditions.  But  in  their  zeal  to  accommodate  their  new 
system  to  the  past  teaching  of  the  popes  they  overshot  the 
mark,  and  instead  of  fixing  conditions  that  would  eliminate 
only  the  obnoxious  teaching,  they  inconsiderately  threw 
overboard  the  whole  in  bulk.  Perhaps  they  will  give  us  a 
new  edition  of  limiting  conditions  by  which  they  may  be 
enabled  to  save  as  much  of  the  past  as  will  suit  their  purposes. 

They  must  certainly  modify  this  first  condition  consider- 


Review  of  Restrictions  of  Papal  Infallibility.    347 

ably  in  order  to  bring  it  into  unison  with  the  rest  of  their 
system.  If  you  compare  the  two  Vatican  decrees  of  the  third 
and  fourth  chapters,  you  will  find  that  the  same  "  supreme 
'power  in  things  which  belong  to  faith  and  morals  "  which  in 
the  third  chapter  is  denned  to  be  "  ordinary  and  immediate 
both  over  each  and  all  the  Churches,  and  over  each  and  all  the 
pastors  and  the  faithful^'  is  declared  in  the  fourth  chapter  to 
be  endowed  with  infallibility.  We  are,  therefore,  of  opinion 
that  Dr.  Newman  is  mistaken  when  he  states  that,  accord- 
ing to  the.  Vatican  definition,  the  pope  must  address  the 
whole  Church  in  order  to  exercise  the  gift  of  infallibility.  He 
is  the  universal  teacher,  not  only  when  he  issues  his  bulls 
and  encyclicals  to  the  whole  Church,  but  also  when  he 
addresses,  in  his  public  capacity,  each  Church,  each  pastor, 
each  faithful  Catholic.  The  tenor  of  both  chapters  combined 
has  evidently  this  meaning.  Indeed,  if  he  has  any  relation 
at  all  to  particular  Churches,  individual  pastors  and  faithful, 
it  is  that  of  universal  pastor  and  teacher.  It  is  only  on 
account  of  this  office  that  they  apply  to  him,  obey  and  believe 
him.  Whenever,  therefore,  he  addresses  particular  countries! 
Churches,  or  individuals,  he  discharges  the  office  of  pastor 
and  doctor  of  all  Christians — omnium  Christianorum  pastoris 
et  doctoris  munere  fungens.  It  would  be  unreasonable  to  dis- 
tinguish between  his  public  acts,  considering  some  of  them 
ex  cathedra  and  binding  and  others  as  quite  open  to  debate 
and  dispute.  To  have  a  mere  universal  teacher  endowed 
with  infallibility  would  be  absurd.  If  there  be  any  need  of 
an  infallible  teacher,  he  is  needed  in  concreto,  that  is,  for 
individual  cases  and  wsiiits,particular  Churches  and  countries. 
Such  a  mere  universal  infallibility  might  do  well  for  the 
closet  of  the  speculative  theologian,  but  it  would  be  too  subtle 
and  utterly  useless  for  the  practical  guidance  of  Churches  and 


348  Roman  Catholicism. 

individuals.  If  we  are  not  mistaken,  Rome  wants  infallibility 
for  practical  purposes.  The  pope  is  pleased  when  he  perceives 
that  his  teaching  is  believed  by  individual  men  and  particular 
Churches.  We  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  first  limitation 
of  papal  definitions,  held  by  Dr.  Newman  and  others,  is  not 
only  against  the  nature  of  things,  but  conflicts  also  with  the 
Vatican  decrees. 

And  if  such  be  the  case,  they  must  admit  all  the  public 
papal  documents,  of  whatever  age,  even  the  strange  teaching 
of  the  mediaeval  popes,  claiming  the  double  sword,  both 
secular  and  spiritual,  over  the  whole  Christian  world,  the 
power  of  deposing  princes  and  of  absolving  subjects  from  the 
oath  of  allegiance,  &c.,  &c.  Indeed,  they  live  and  move  in 
the  middle  ages,  and  would  publicly  admit  the  doctrines  then 
taught  by  the  popes,  if  modern  society  did  not  cry  out  against 
such  teaching.  In  order  to  silence  this  cry,  and  to  bring  their 
theory,  in  some  manner,  into  unison  with  the  past,  they  are 
compelled  to  ignore  history,  or  to  falsify  and  adulterate  it. 

The  other  limiting  conditions,  adduced  by  Dr.  Newman 
and  others,  do  not  remove  the  vagueness  of  the  ex-cathedrd 
definitions,  nor  do  they  render  the  pope  less  arbitrary.  Thus, 
in  regard  to  the  second  condition,  that  he  is  required  to  speak 
"  in  the  name  and  with  the  authority  of  the  Apostles,"  we 
find  that  the  words  auctoritate  Ajjostolicce  Sedis — "by  the 
authority  of  the  Apostolic  See" — occur  in  almost  every  docu- 
ment that  is  issued  from  the  Vatican ;  it  is  one  of  the  prero- 
gatives which  the  pope  sets  forth  with  an  emphasis  and  in 
which  he  constantly  glories.  He  is  pope  only  in  so  far  as  he 
speaks  and  acts  "  in  the  name  and  with  the  authority  of  the 
Apostles."  Now,  in  all  his  public  documents,  whether  addres- 
sed to  the  whole  Church  or  to  particular  churches,  countries, 
and  individuals,  he  cannot  but  speaii  and  act  as  pope.    Yet, 


Review  of  Restrictions  of  Papal  Infallibility,  349 

the  minimizers  do  not  admit  all  the  encyclicals  and  bulls 
which  emanate  from  him  as  pope,  or  auctoritate  Aposteli,  as 
infallible  ex-cathedrd  utterances;  they  would  have  to  add  to 
their  creed  all  the  absurd  and  monstrous  doctrines  of  the 
mediaeval  popes,  for  they  were  very  fond  of  speaking  auctori- 
tate Apostolicce. 

The  third  condition  states  that  the  pope  must  speak  "  on  a 
point  of  faith  or  morals  " — a  useless  limitation.  "Who  but 
the  pope  has  to  draw  the  line  between  secular  and  religious 
matters?  May  not  all  human  doctrines  and  actions  be 
brought,  in  some  shape  or  other,  within  the  domain  of  faith 
or  morals  ?  It  is  useless  to  say  that  all  his  definitions  must 
be  contained  in  Scripture  or  tradition.  Is  he  not  the  only 
infallible  keeper  and  interpreter  of  this  depositum  !  He 
will  tell  you  that,  if  his  definitions  are  not  explicitly  ex- 
pressed in  Scripture  and  tradition,  they  are  implicitly  con- 
tained therein  and  legitimately  evolved  therefrom,  and  that 
he  alone  is  the  proper  judge  of  the  legitimacy  of  this  develop- 
ment. 

Nor  is  the  fourth  and  last  condition,  namely,  that  ex-cathe- 
drd definitions  must  be  given  "  with  the  purpose  of  binding 
every  member  of  the  Church  to  accept  and  believe  his  deci- 
sion," of  any  greater  value  as  a  limitation.  If  the  force  of  this 
condition  lies  in  the  words  "  every  memher  of  the  Church"  in 
that  case  it  is  equivalent  to  the  first  one.  For  as  a  "  universal 
teacher"  "  speaking  to  the  whole  world  "  he  cannot  but  ad- 
dress "  every  member  of  the  Church."  And  if  the  force  lies 
in  the  words  "  binding  to  accept  and  believe  his  decision," 
then  every  papal  document  would  be  ex-cathedrd,  for  he  on 
every  occasion  demands  to  be  obeyed  and  believed.  Does  he 
not  teach  or  direct  in  every  such  document?  Why 
should  he  do  so,  unless  he  wanted  to  be  obeyed  and  be- 


350  Roman  Catholicism. 

lieved^  And  do  not  the  members  addressed  consider  it 
their  duty  to  believe  him,  and  to  act  according  to  his  com- 
mands %  We  find  that  the  weaker  the  reasons  are  which  the 
popes  assign  for  their  teaching,  the  stronger  the  language 
they  use  to  enforce  faith  and  obedience. 

Koman  Catholic  theologians  feel  that  papal  infallibility 
pure  and  simple,  unconditional  and  unlimited  by  circumstan- 
ces, space,  and  time,  would  be  an  absurdity  and  a  monstros- 
ity ;  nay,  that  it  would  be  blasphemy,  because  it  gives  to  sin- 
ful and  weak  man  an  attribute  of  the  deity. 

Hence  their  ingenuity  in  finding  out  conditions  limiting 
this  pretended  gift.  But  they  must  find  that  all  their  labour 
is  in  vain.  Every  limitation  involves  their  system  in  contra- 
dictions ;  and  the  more  conditions  they  make,  the  more  ab- 
surdities they  connect  with  the  infallibility  of  their  popes. 
They  have  no  choice  left  them  between  infallibility  pure  and 
simple,  and  the  denial  of  it  altogether.  If  they  think  that 
they  can  prove  their  infallibility  hypothesis  by  Scripture, 
they  must  admit  it  pure  and  simple ;  for  in  the  texts  which 
they  adduce  on  its  behalf,  there  is  no  distinction  between  &c- 
cathedrd  and  not  ex-cathedrd  decisions.  And  if  the  popes  are 
seated  in  the  chair  of  Peter  or  of  Christ  as  "  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  were  seated  in  the  chair  of  Moses,"  then  Roman 
Catholics  must  "  observe  and  do  all  things  whatsoever  they 
shall  say  to  them."  All  these  limiting  conditions  are  arbi- 
trary and  of  private  invention,  and  every  infallibilist  there- 
fore is  at  liberty  to  form  his  own  opinion,  restricting  this 
new  dogma  and  manifesting  it  for  his  own  individual  use 
Unless  they  admit  papal  infallibility  in  all  the  fulness  and 
perfection  of  the  term,  the  new  rule  of  faith  is  and  re- 
mains among  the  dark  and  inexplicable  problems  of  their 
theolop-v. 


